PLANNING PROPOSAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA: The Hills Shire Council
NAME OF PLANNING PROPOSAL: Proposed The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 (Amendment No (#)) – Proposed amendments to rezone the site from part R2 Low Density Residential and part SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) to part R2 Low Density Residential, part SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) and part SP2 Infrastructure (Information and Education Facilities) and to increase the maximum building height from 10m to part 10m and part 15m for land at 2 Green Road, Castle Hill.
ADDRESS OF LAND: 2 Green Road, Castle Hill (Lot 102 DP 1130271) SUMMARY OF HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT YIELD:
EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL YIELD
Dwellings 0 0 0
Jobs 13 50 63
Note: The existing 13 jobs are located on the existing Museum Discovery Centre. There are currently no jobs on land identified for the proposed expansion. Proposed jobs are based on the Proponent’s Planning Proposal Report.
Attachment A Assessment against State Environment Planning Policies Attachment B Assessment against Section 9.1 Local Planning Directions Attachment C Council Report and Minute, 24 March 2020
Attachment D Local Planning Panel Report and Minute, 19 February 2020 Attachment E Proponent’s Planning Proposal and Supporting Material Attachment F Gateway Determination, 30 April 2020
The subject site is located at Lot 102 DP 1252765, 2 Green Road, Castle Hill. It has a total area of approximately 3.8ha. The site is known as The Hills TAFE College – Castle Hill Campus, located on the corner of Green Road and Showground Road, Castle Hill.
The site adjoins the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (Museum Discovery Centre) located at 172 Showground Road, Castle Hill. Both sites have a combined area of 6.7 hectares. The planning proposal relates specifically to the portion of the TAFE site identified in Figure 1 below. The majority of the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential with a narrow portion of land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) fronting Showground Road.
The site currently contains several TAFE buildings, car parking and vegetated open spaces, catering for approximately 400 enrolled students. A dam is also located on the north-eastern frontage of the site. Vehicle access points on the site are located on Green Road and Showground Road. A longstanding agreement between TAFE and the Museum Discovery Centre (MDC) permits vehicle access to the MDC from the Green Road access point of the TAFE site.
The subject site is owned by the Minister Administering the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990, the NSW Government authority responsible for managing TAFE colleges.
The Museum Discovery Centre is owned by the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS).
The proponent and planning consultant responsible for the proposal is Milestone (Aust) Pty Ltd.
Aerial view of the site (area to be rezoned and increase the maximum building height is identified in red)
PART 1 OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOME
The planning proposal seeks to expand the adjoining Museum Discovery Centre through the construction of a new building to provide storage, production and operational facilities which will accommodate the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences’ collections storage, workshops, offices, conservation, research and treatment facilities. Concept plans include the development of a building with a height of 14.35 metres, accommodating approximately 9,800m2 of gross floor area (see Figure 2).
Indicative elevated view of proposed building from corner of Showground Road and Green Road (the proposed development is coloured)
PART 2 EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISIONS
The proposed outcomes will be achieved by amending The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 as follows:
1. Rezone the site from part R2 Low Density Residential and part SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) to part R2 Low Density Residential, part SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) and part SP2 Infrastructure (Information and Education Facilities); and
2. Increase the maximum building height from 10m to part 10m and part 15m.
PART 3 JUSTIFICATION
SECTION A - NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL
1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
No, the planning proposal is not a result of any strategic study or report. It has been initiated by the Proponent, acting on the behalf of MAAS, the owners of the adjoining Museum Discovery Centre site, with consent of the landowners of the TAFE site. The planning proposal responds to the intended relocation of the Powerhouse Museum from Ultimo to Parramatta and to cater for the existing and future growth of the MAAS collection.
2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
Yes, the planning proposal is considered to be the best way to achieve the intended outcomes for the site. The existing Land Use Zoning, being predominantly R2 Low Density Residential, does not appropriately reflect the intended use of the site for a regional cultural facility. Rezoning a portion of the subject land to SP2 Infrastructure (Information and Education Facilities) will facilitate the necessary expansion of the Museum Discovery Centre and enable the proposed development of a new building to be used for storage, offices, research and associated facilities.
SECTION B - RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK
3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
Yes, a discussion of consistency is provided below.
• Greater Sydney Region Plan
The Greater Sydney Region Plan, A Metropolis of Three Cities, seeks to build on Sydney’s reputation for liveability and cultural diversity that attracts local and international visitors, by building on its social, economic and environmental assets to improve the quality of life for all its residents. The Plan looks towards achieving efficient planning for city-shaping infrastructure and enhanced utilisation of infrastructure, and recognises that “great places are made when artistic, cultural and creative works are visible, valued, distinctive and accessible” (p.57).
The planning proposal will support the following objectives of the Plan:
• Objective 4 ‘Infrastructure use is optimised’;
• Objective 9 ‘Greater Sydney celebrates the arts and supports creative industries and innovation’; and
• Objective 19 ‘Greater Parramatta is stronger and better connected’.
The planning proposal is consistent with the Plan as it will operate near the Showground Station Precinct and promote the use of its public transport services (Objective 4). Further, the proposal will facilitate cultural infrastructure through expanding the MDC site (Objective 9) to support the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and its necessary operations (Objective 19).
Objective 27 of the Plan seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity by supporting the restoration of bushland corridors, managing urban bushland and remnant vegetation as green infrastructure, and managing urban development and urban bushland to reduce edge-effects. In accordance with the Gateway Determination, consultation with the Environment, Energy and Sciences Group (formerly OEH) will be undertaken.
• Central City District Plan
The Central City District Plan recognises the importance of supporting cohesive and socially dynamic communities with social infrastructure, including new cultural facilities. The Plan also recognises the value of optimising the use of available public land for social infrastructure, and identifies the Museum Discovery Centre as contributing towards the range of artistic and cultural experiences available in the Central City District.
The planning proposal supports the following planning priorities:
Priority C3: ‘Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs’;
Priority C4: ‘Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities’;
Priority C9: ‘Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city’.
The planning proposal has the potential to create new jobs close to home for Hills Shire residents and will assist with optimising the use of existing public land (being the TAFE site and the adjoining Museum Discovery Centre site) through the co-location and intensification of services.
The proposal will support the growth and development of Western Sydney’s arts and cultural sector, with the new floor space required to support the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum to a new site in Parramatta.
The Central City District Plan’s Planning Priorities C15 ‘Protecting and enhancing bushland, biodiversity and scenic and cultural landscapes’ and C16 ‘Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections’ seek to protect biodiversity, enhance urban bushland and remnant vegetation, and increase the urban tree canopy.
Whilst the proposed built form facilitated by the planning proposal would require the removal of 337 trees (not considered to be representative of remnant native vegetation), the Proponent has indicated a commitment to replant trees at a ratio of 2:1 on and offsite which would increase the Shire’s overall urban tree canopy, subject to the availability of land and landowner consent. This will be negotiated during the assessment of a Development Application. These negotiations will include the identification of suitable planting locations.
The Proponent’s Visual Impact Analysis is provided in Attachment E. It acknowledges that there will be a loss of tree canopy which will impact views from Sunderland Avenue. However, the larger trees on the northern boundary will be retained and will be the dominant visual features in the foreground when viewed from Sunderland Avenue. The established low density residential character will be maintained in this location. Photomontages of the proposed development are provided in Section C.
Given the foregoing, the planning proposal is considered to be consistent with the planning priorities of the Central City District Plan. Notwithstanding, consultation with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment – Environment, Energy and Sciences Group (formerly known as the Office of Environment and Heritage) will be undertaken as part of the exhibition of the planning proposal in accordance with the Gateway Determination.
4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?
Yes, a discussion of consistency is provided below.
• The Hills Future Community Strategic Plan
The Hills Future Community Strategic Direction articulates Council’s and the community’s shared vision, values, aspirations and priorities with reference to other local government plans, information and resourcing capabilities. It is a direction that creates a picture of where The Hills would like to be in the future. The direction is based on community aspirations gathered throughout months of community engagement and consultation with members of the community. The proposal will assist with building a vibrant community by facilitating the expansion and improvement of an existing cultural facility. The proposal will also support the growing population providing jobs and services within the local area.
• The Hills Local Strategic Planning Statement
Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement: Hills Future 2036 (LSPS) outlines the Shire’s 20- year vision for land use planning, population, housing, economic growth and environmental management. The subject site is identified within the Norwest Strategic Centre structure plan for infrastructure purposes (Museum and TAFE - see Figure 3).
Norwest Strategic Centre – Structure Plan
Although the LSPS does not identify specific objectives in relation the Museum Discovery Centre or TAFE, it does recognise the contribution that cultural infrastructure makes to the quality of life of residents. The supporting Productivity and Centres Strategy also identifies the need to continue to create employment opportunities, particularly knowledge-based jobs. The proposed development will provide local job opportunities with the expansion expected to result in an additional 50 jobs on site. It is anticipated that the additional 50 staff will work within the new offices, research library, exhibition preparation areas and conservation/ treatment workshops within the proposed building.
5. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?
Yes. An assessment of the planning proposal against applicable State Environmental Planning Policies is provided in Attachment A. A discussion on the consistency of the proposal with the relevant Policies is provided below.
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)
SEPP 55 requires that the potential for land contamination is to be considered at the planning proposal stage. In response to this requirement, the Proponent has submitted a Stage 1
‘Preliminary Site Investigation’ report and a Stage 2 ‘Detailed Site Investigation’ report.
The Stage 1 preliminary assessment identified an area of potential environmental concern within the proposed development footprint and as a result, recommended that further contamination assessment be undertaken (being a Stage 2 ‘Detailed Site Investigation’ report). The Stage 2
‘Detailed Site Investigation’ report notes the presence of some contaminants within soil samples;
however, it identifies that these contaminants are located within land that would be either excavated and removed from the site or covered by concrete associated with the proposed development.
The Stage 2 report concludes that with respect to the proposed redevelopment scenario, the identified contaminants are unlikely to result in any unacceptable:
Direct contact human health exposure;
Inhalation/vapour intrusion human health exposure; or
Ecological contamination risk.
The report ultimately recommends that the site is suitable for the proposed redevelopment outcome and that no further investigations are required for the development to proceed. It is noted that should the proposal proceed, this matter would be further considered as part of any future development application process. The applicant may be required to prepare further investigations and management plans and, if necessary, complete remediation work as part of future development.
SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011
The State and Regional Development SEPP is largely administrative; identifying and outlining procedural requirements for various types of State and Regional Development. Under the SEPP,
‘information and education facilities’ can be considered state significant development where the development has a capital investment value of more than $30 million.
It will be open to the Proponent to lodge a state significant development application for any future development on the site, should the proposal meet the necessary criteria under the SEPP.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal does not undermine the aims or operation of this SEPP.
SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017
SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 seeks to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State. The SEPP outlines permissibility of various forms of development on education land including schools and TAFE sites.
The proposal does not seek to undermine the operation of this SEPP. Whilst the proposal will facilitate an expansion of the Museum Discovery Centre on TAFE land, the proposal is considered appropriate given the educational nature of the facility and the long-standing relationship between the Museum Discovery Centre and the TAFE.
As required by the Gateway Determination, the proponent has provided evidence of TAFE NSW’s
‘in-principle’ agreement to the following matters:
Gateway Condition 1(d)(i): Future development on TAFE’s land for the expansion of the Museum Discovery Centre:
Documentation submitted by the proponent indicates that Create Infrastructure will be responsible for carrying out all works for the subdivision and to separate any services on both the Land and the residue lot. All reasonable steps to minimise disturbance to TAFE NSW’s operations on the Castle Hill campus are to be taken.
Gateway Condition 1(d)(ii): The proposed relocation of tree planting with consideration afforded to implications for any future growth of the TAFE facility:
Documentation submitted by the proponent advises that TAFE NSW confirms its ‘in principle’ agreement, on behalf of the Minister, to the proposed relocation of tree planting with consideration afforded to implications for any future growth of the TAFE facility.
Gateway Condition 1(d)(iii) Relocation of car parking spaces within the TAFE site:
Documentation submitted by the proponent confirms that any TAFE NSW car parking or training delivery area that is displaced will have to be reinstated elsewhere on the TAFE NSW – Castle Hill Campus by Create Infrastructure, at its cost. Further, displacement must not occur until the alternate location is ready for use to TAFE NSW’s satisfaction.
Gateway Condition 1(d)(iv): Formalisation of existing access arrangements by creation of an easement to allow vehicular access between the Museum Discovery Centre and TAFE to ensure certainty about a legal right of access:
Documentation submitted by the proponent advises that subject to obtaining the approval of the Minister administering the Technical and Further Education Commission Act 1990, Create Infrastructure and TAFE NSW agree to grant any easements (including access easements) that are reasonably required to enable both parties to operate their facilities.
Gateway Condition 1(d)(v): Continued arrangements to accommodate “overflow” parking associated with Museum Discovery Centre weekend events:
Documentation submitted by the proponent advises that TAFE NSW confirms its ‘in principle’ agreement, on behalf of the Minister, to continue arrangements to accommodate
“overflow” parking on TAFE NSW Castle Hill associated with the Museum Discovery Centre weekend events on terms to be agreed between TAFE and Create Infrastructure.
6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s. 9.1 directions)?
Yes. The consistency of the planning proposal with the Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions is detailed within Attachment B. A discussion on the consistency of the proposal with each relevant Direction is provided below.
Direction 2.6 Remediation of Contaminated Land
This Direction seeks to reduce the risk of harm to human health and the environment by ensuring that contamination and remediation are considered in assessment. Contamination assessment (Stage 2 ‘Detailed Site Investigation’ Report) submitted by the Proponent and included in Attachment E identifies that the site contains some contaminants within soil samples. However, identified contaminants are located within land that would be either excavated and removed from the site or covered by concrete associated with the proposed development. The report ultimately recommends that the site is suitable for the proposed redevelopment outcome. It is noted that should the proposal proceed, this matter would be further considered as part of any future
development application process. The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of this Direction.
Direction 3.1 Residential Zones
This Direction seeks to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs, to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands. The Direction applies when a planning proposal will affect land within an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary). A planning proposal must not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of the land.
The subject site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential under LEP 2019 and as such, the rezoning would technically be inconsistent with this direction. Notwithstanding this, the inconsistency is considered minor and acceptable in this instance given:
a) The site is occupied by the Castle Hill campus of TAFE NSW. Despite residential uses being permitted on the land, the existing development does not contain any residential dwellings or uses. Given the existing use on the site, the proposed rezoning would not result in any actual reduction in residential density on the land.
b) The site was previously zoned Special Uses 5(c) under Baulkham Hills LEP 2005.
However, in preparing Council’s Standard Instrument LEP, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment required that smaller education facilities and schools did not warrant the application of a special use zone and instead, a zone consistent with the adjoining land should be applied (in this case, low density residential consistent with surrounding land to the north and east). If not for the requirements imposed by the Department in the preparation of Standard Instrument LEPs, this land would have otherwise remained zoned for Special Uses and/or Infrastructure.
The Department’s Gateway Determination letter to Council has confirmed that the planning proposal’s inconsistency with this Direction is justified and that no further approval is required in relation to this Direction.
Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport
This Direction seeks to facilitate the integration of land uses and transport through measures including improving access to jobs by walking, cycling and public transport, supporting the operation of public transport and reducing trips generated by a development.
The proposal will contribute to local employment opportunities making more jobs accessible to local residents via walking, cycling and public transport. The proposal seeks to rely on existing parking within the Museum and TAFE sites which will reduce private vehicle trips and encourage the use of nearby public transport options including the Metro, On Demand and other local bus services. Accordingly, the proposal supports the aims of this Direction.
Direction 6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements
This Direction seeks to ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development. It recommends to avoid including provisions that unnecessarily require approval or concurrence from other authorities. The proposal does not include any referral or concurrence requirements and is therefore consistent with this Direction.
SECTION C - ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
The proposal is anticipated to result in the loss of approximately 337 native trees, with the development footprint being located over an area of vegetation identified as being characteristic of Cumberland Plain Woodland (‘spotted gum’). The Proponent has advised that this area of trees was planted in the late-1940s as an experiment into essential oils. Being a plantation, the trees exhibit signs of suppressed form and inferior structural stability and canopy when compared to genuine remnant/naturally occurring bushland. Further, the plantation does not contain any shrubs or near-continuous ground cover which would be associated with naturally occurring vegetation.
Some of the trees have been identified as average condition with potential termite damage.
Accordingly, the vegetation is not considered to be representative of remnant native vegetation.
Notwithstanding the above, the proposed tree removal will exceed the threshold for the clearing of native vegetation and subsequently trigger the Biodiversity Offset Scheme. The Proponent would be required to submit a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) as part of any future development application to consider measures to offset any impacts to biodiversity as required under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Consultation with the Environment Energy and Science Group will be undertaken as required by the Gateway Determination.
A Tree Replacement Strategy has been prepared by the proponent which indicates a commitment to replanting any removed trees at a ratio of 2:1 and investigating of opportunities to achieve this both on and off the site. The strategy advises that replacement trees will be provided on the subject site in the first instance as identified in the Proponent’s landscape plan (see Figure 4) including both the Museum and TAFE sites. The Proponent intends to include the TAFE site as part of any future Development Application for proposed expansion, which will provide the planning mechanism to ensure that replanting on site is undertaken in accordance with a future Landscape Plan.
Condition 1(e) of the Gateway Determination required further clarification with respect to the intended arrangements for any tree replanting proposed off-site including negotiations with Council to identify possible planting locations. In response, Create NSW has advised in their letter of 25 May 2020, that:
Trees will be replaced at a ratio of two (2) new trees to be planted for every one (1) tree removed from the site;
All efforts will be made to accommodate as many replacement trees on the site of the existing Museum Discovery Centre (MDC) or the adjacent TAFE site. The ability of the replacement trees to reach maturity in respect of adequate space on these two sites will be accounted for in prioritising replanting on these sites;
Where replacement planting cannot be accommodated on the MDC and TAFE site, locations within the Hills Shire will be identified, noting the following:
o The proponent is in discussion with Transport for NSW and Landcom regarding replacement planting locations around the Bella Vista and Showground Metro Stations; and
o The Proponent has initiated discussions with Council in regard to replanting on Council owned land and commits to continuing negotiations with Council to identify suitable sites.
Any replacement trees will be in addition to any current planting committed to by either Council or other developers within the Shire already.
The maintenance of any replanted trees will be undertaken by the Proponent in accordance with Council’s requirement for a six month maintenance period.
The Tree Replacement Strategy will be developed in full and submitted as part of the future development application, by which approval will be sought to remove the existing trees from the site.
Figure 9 shows the indicative Replanting Locations around Proposed Building J.
Indicative Replanting Locations (as shown in green shading)
8. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
The existing Museum Discovery Centre typically has between two (2) to thirteen (13) staff on site Monday to Friday and up to five (5) volunteers on site on weekends (this is not expected to increase). The proponent has advised that there are currently 54 existing parking spaces on the Museum Discovery Centre site as well as an arrangement with the TAFE to accommodate additional ‘overflow’ parking on the TAFE site when required (typically required when the Museum Discovery Centre opens on the weekends, which correlates with the period during which the TAFE is closed).
With respect to parking for the Museum Discovery Centre, the proposal seeks to rely on the existing 54 parking spaces on the site to cater for existing and future staff (up to 63 employees at peak periods). The proponent considers that this rate of provision is reasonable given:
A Green Travel Plan will be implemented as part of a future Development Application to encourage public transport use and reduce the use of on-site car parking by staff;
There is currently low utilisation of the existing parking on site with surveys observing significant capacity available during weekday periods;
The site is well connected by bus and rail public transport options including several bus services, Showground Metro Station and Norwest On-Demand Bus Service;
The site has good accessibility via the existing footpath network and cycleways that facilitate walking and cycling to the site; and
Peak times for visitation to the Museum Discovery Centre are for weekend events, when there would be limited staff present on site and overflow parking available within the adjoining TAFE site (subject to confirmation from TAFE with respect to the continuation of the current arrangement).
With respect to parking for the TAFE site, the proposal will require relocation of 24 formal spaces from the site of the proposed new building, to an area along the Green Road frontage of the property. It is important that these parking spaces are relocated to ensure adequate parking remains for the ongoing operation of the TAFE, however, consideration should also be given to the
potential impacts of any new parking areas on existing vegetation on the site. It is also noted that a previous consent for the TAFE site identified a potential ‘informal’ parking area which is also located within the footprint of the proposed new building. While the sealing and formal use of this area has not been required since the issue of the original consent, any change to parking arrangements for the TAFE would need to be further considered as part of a future Development Application.
Given the unique nature of the development (storage of the Museum’s collection, workshops, office space and conservation facilities), the Applicant has submitted a Traffic and Car Parking Impact Statement which examines expected traffic generation. The report concludes that the proposal is likely to generate a maximum of 35 trips in the peak period and 105 trips per day, increasing the flow of traffic by less than 3% at the key intersections of Windsor Road and Showground Road and Showground Road, Green Road and Victoria Avenue. The main public vehicular access to the Museum Discovery Centre is via Windsor Road. There are also vehicle access points on Showground Road and Green Road (via the TAFE site). The Traffic Impact Statement concludes that the proposal would have minimal impact on the surrounding roads and intersections.
An area of land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) is identified along the full frontage of the site to Showground Road (see Part 4 of this report). Plans indicate that the new building will have a setback of approximately 10m to the portion of land identified for widening on Showground Road. It is understood that preliminary plans are currently being prepared by Transport for NSW for the upgrade of Showground Road and associated intersections which may have implications for future parking and access arrangements on the TAFE and the Museum Discovery Centre site.
The proposed traffic generation is considered reasonable and within the daily variation of traffic experienced on major roads within Sydney. Whilst no significant concern is raised with the proposal at this stage, in accordance with the Gateway Determination consultation will be undertaken with Transport for NSW with respect to potential traffic impacts on Showground Road and Windsor Road given the prominent location of the site at the intersection of these two roads.
Transport for NSW should also comment on any implications associated with the planned widening of Showground Road in the vicinity of the site.
9. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
Land Use and Employment
The proposal will have the positive effect of providing additional local employment opportunities with the expansion expected to result in an additional 50 jobs on site. It is anticipated that the additional 50 staff will work within the new offices, research library, exhibition preparation areas and conservation/ treatment workshops within the proposed building.
It is noted that the area of trees to be removed were planted in the late-1940s, as a research experiment relating to essential oils/eucalyptus oil. As such, the vegetation is not associated with any significant personnel and in some cases is in poor physical condition. The area of trees are considered to have very little archaeological potential and or significance right from a heritage point of view, either at a State or local level. Whilst the plantation is not considered to have any particular heritage value, the Proponent will consider the re-use of timber from the removed trees as part of a future interpretive display, and the conducting of archival recording before the trees are removed to retain information about the site as part of any future development application for the site.
Built Form and Amenity
It is considered that the proposal will facilitate an acceptable built form and amenity outcome. The proposed building is broadly consistent with the prevailing height of existing development on the Museum site and will be separated from the nearest residential dwelling by approximately 50 metres. Existing landscaping proposed to be retained will continue to provide some screening between the proposed building and the adjoining residential dwellings. Shadow plans submitted
with the application indicate the proposed building will not overshadow the adjoining residential properties or the adjoining public park.
Notwithstanding the above, the Gateway Determination required the following additional information, prior to any public exhibition of the proposal:
Gateway Condition 1(c): Visual Impact Analysis, indicative landscape plan and photomontages showing views of the proposed development outcome viewed from the low density residential areas along Sunderland Avenue, Sunderland Avenue Reserve to the north and from within the TAFE campus.
In response to this Gateway Condition, the Proponent has submitted a Visual Impact Analysis and indicative landscape plan (May 2020) (see Attachment E). The Visual Impact Analysis (which includes supporting photomontages) indicates that impacts on views from the proposal are expected to be as follows:
Proponent’s Visual Impact Assessment – Summary
The expected visual impact of the proposal is shown in the following photomontages:
Figure 5 Figure 6
View from Sunderland Avenue View from Sunderland Avenue Reserve
Figure 7 Figure 8
View from within the TAFE site View from Showground Road
Viewpoint Overall Visual Impact Rating Within the TAFE Campus Moderate - Low
Green Road Negligible
Showground Road Negligible / Low Sunderland Avenue Moderate - Low Sunderland Avenue Reserve Negligible
The proponent’s Visual Impact Analysis acknowledges that views of the splayed northern elevation of the building will be visible through the trees and shrub vegetation on the TAFE site to the north of the proposed Building J, and that there will be a loss of tree canopy impacting on views from Sunderland Avenue. The Assessment recommends the use of muted colours, minimal external lighting, matte external finishes and façade articulation to reduce visual impact. The lower building height on the northern end of the site will also reduce visual bulk from this viewpoint. It is considered that the information submitted in response to the Gateway condition will assist in communicating the intended development outcomes to the community during the public exhibition period.
The indicative Landscape Plan illustrates the planting of trees around the new building (see Figure 9).
Indicative Replanting Locations around Proposed Building J
SECTION D - STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTERESTS
10. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?
The subject site will have access to public infrastructure including utility services as the proposed development is positioned in an urban environment, within the existing TAFE site. The site has access to public transport, including bus and rail, with the Showground Metro Station located approximately 1.5km walking distance from the site. The station is also accessible through the Norwest On Demand bus service.
An area of land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road) is identified along the full frontage of the site to Showground Road. It is understood that preliminary plans are currently being prepared by Transport for NSW for the upgrade of Showground Road and associated intersections which may have implications for future parking and access arrangements on the TAFE and the Museum Discovery Centre site.
Impacts on Infrastructure:
This proposal seeks to expand an existing cultural infrastructure facility to include additional storage and collection preparation areas, with some ancillary office uses. Future development would be levied in accordance with Council’s 7.12 Contributions Plan (1% of cost of development) as part of any future development consent.
The proposal would not result in any increased demand for passive open space, playing fields or community facilities. It is noted that the proposal would actually contribute to the provision of cultural infrastructure which is available to current and future residents within the Shire.
In terms of traffic infrastructure, the proposal is not expected to result in any significant increase in traffic beyond the current Museum operations and the key intersections of Windsor Road, Showground Road, Green Road and Victoria Avenue are already under State ownership (with required upgrades already the responsibility of Transport for NSW).
Any future upgrades to Showground Road (a State-owned road) are not triggered by this planning proposal and will be delivered as part of existing TfNSW upgrade plans. Consultation with TfNSW will be undertaken in accordance with the Gateway Determination. Should the Government wish to secure a contribution towards State Road upgrades, this would be discussed further at this time.
Whilst no significant concern is raised at this stage, consultation will be undertaken with Transport for NSW with respect to potential traffic impacts on Showground Road and Windsor Road given the prominent location of the site at the intersection of these two roads. Transport for NSW should also comment on any implications associated with the planned widening of Showground Road in the vicinity of the site.
11. What are the views of State and Commonwealth Public Authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination, and have they resulted in any variations to the planning proposal?
In accordance with the Gateway Determination, consultation is required with the following public authorities for a period of 21 days:
• Transport for NSW (and Roads and Maritime Services);
• Department of Education;
• Environment Energy and Science Group; and
• Endeavour Energy.
PART 4 MAPPING
The planning proposal seeks to amend the Land Zone Map and Height of Buildings Map of The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019.
Existing Land Zone Map
Proposed Land Zone Map
Existing Height of Buildings Map
Proposed Height of Buildings Map
PART 5 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The planning proposal will be advertised in the ‘Hills to Hawkesbury’ local community magazine and online media platforms including Council’s website and Facebook Page.
PART 6 PROJECT TIMELINE
Commencement Date (Gateway Determination) May 2020
Government agency consultation June 2020
Commencement of public exhibition period* June 2020
Completion of public exhibition period July 2020
Timeframe for consideration of submissions August 2020 Timeframe for consideration of proposal post exhibition September 2020
Report to Council on submissions October 2020
Planning Proposal to PCO for opinion November 2020
Date Council will make the plan (if delegated) December 2020
ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SEPP)
APPLICABLE TO THSC
(IF RELEVANT) INCONSISTENT/
No. 19 Bushland in Urban Areas YES NO -
No. 21 Caravan Parks YES NO -
No. 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development
YES NO -
No. 36 Manufactured Home Estates NO - -
No. 47 Moore Park Showground NO - -
No. 50 Canal Estate Development YES NO -
No. 55 Remediation of Land YES YES CONSISTENT
No. 64 Advertising and Signage YES NO -
No. 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development
YES NO -
No. 70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)
YES NO -
Aboriginal Land (2019) NO - -
Affordable Rental Housing (2009) YES NO -
Building Sustainability Index: BASIX (2004) YES NO -
Coastal Management (2018) NO - -
Concurrences (2018) YES NO -
Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities (2017)
YES YES CONSISTENT
Exempt and Complying Development Codes (2008)
YES NO -
Gosford City Centre (2018) NO - -
Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability (2004)
YES NO -
Infrastructure (2007) YES NO -
Koala Habitat Protection NO - -
Kosciuszko National Park – Alpine Resorts (2007)
NO - -
Kurnell Peninsula (1989) NO - -
Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries (2007)
YES NO -
Penrith Lakes Scheme (1989) NO - -
Primary Production and Rural Development (2019)
YES NO -
State and Regional Development (2011) YES YES CONSISTENT
State Significant Precincts (2005) YES NO -
Sydney Drinking Water Catchment (2011) NO - -
Sydney Region Growth Centres (2006) YES NO -
Three Ports (2013) NO - -
Urban Renewal (2010) NO - -
Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas (2017) YES NO -
Western Sydney Employment Area (2009) NO - -
Western Sydney Parklands (2009) NO - -
SREP No. 8 (Central Coast Plateau Areas) NO - -
SREP No. 9 – Extractive Industry (No. 2 – 1995)
YES NO -
SREP No. 16 – Walsh Bay NO - -
SREP No. 20 – Hawkesbury – Nepean YES NO -
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (SEPP)
APPLICABLE TO THSC
(IF RELEVANT) INCONSISTENT/
CONSISTENT River (No 2 – 1997)
SREP No. 24 – Homebush Bay Area NO - -
SREP No. 26 – City West NO - -
SREP No. 30 – St Marys NO - -
SREP No. 33 – Cooks Cove NO - -
SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 NO - -
ATTACHMENT B: ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECTION 9.1 MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS
DIRECTION APPLICABLE RELEVANT?
(IF RELEVANT) INCONSISTENT/
CONSISTENT 1. Employment and Resources
1.1 Business and Industrial Zones YES NO -
1.2 Rural Zones YES NO -
1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries
YES NO -
1.4 Oyster Aquaculture YES NO -
1.5 Rural Lands NO - -
2. Environment and Heritage
2.1 Environment Protection Zone YES NO -
2.2 Coastal Protection NO - -
2.3 Heritage Conservation YES NO -
2.4 Recreation Vehicle Area YES NO -
2.5 Application of E2 and E3 Zones and Environmental Overlays in Far North Coast LEPs
NO - -
2.6 Remediation of Contaminated Land YES YES CONSISTENT
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development
3.1 Residential Zones YES YES INCONSISTENT
See section 6 3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured
YES NO -
3.3 Home Occupations YES NO -
3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport
CONSISTENT 3.5 Development Near Licensed
YES NO -
3.6 Shooting Ranges YES NO -
3.7 Reduction in non-hosted short term rental accommodation period
NO - -
4. Hazard and Risk
4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils YES NO -
4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land
YES NO -
4.3 Flood Prone Land YES NO -
4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection YES NO -
5. Regional Planning
5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies
NO - -
5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment NO - -
5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast
NO - -
DIRECTION APPLICABLE RELEVANT?
(IF RELEVANT) INCONSISTENT/
CONSISTENT 5.4 Commercial and Retail
Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast
NO - -
5.9 North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy
YES NO -
5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans NO - -
5.11 Development of Aboriginal Land Council land
YES NO -
6. Local Plan Making 6.1 Approval and Referral
YES YES CONSISTENT
6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes
YES NO -
6.3 Site Specific Provisions YES NO -
7. Metropolitan Planning
7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney
NO - -
7.2 Implementation of Greater Macarthur Land Release Investigation
NO - -
7.3 Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy
NO - -
7.4 Implementation of North West Priority Growth Area Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan
YES NO -
7.5 Implementation of Greater Parramatta Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan
NO - -
7.6 Implementation of Wilton Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan
NO - -
7.7 Implementation of Glenfield to Macarthur Urban Renewal Corridor
NO - -
7.8 Implementation of Western Sydney Aerotropolis Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan
NO - -
7.9 Implementation of Bayside West Precincts 2036 Plan
NO - -
7.10 Implementation of Planning Principles for the Cooks Cove Precinct
NO - -