Post-Exhibition Planning Report

(1)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) Amendment (Area 20 Precinct) 2011

Post-Exhibition Planning Report

SEPTEMBER 2011

(2)

(3)

Tables

Table 1-1: Summary of planning outcomes for the Area 20 Precinct... 2

Table 2-1: Public notification ... 4

Table 3-1: Summary of submissions ... 5

Table 4-1: Changes to the Open Space Network... 18

Table 4-2: Summary of key changes to the SEPP Maps ... 26

Table 5-1: Consistency with North West Growth Centre Structure Plan... 28

Table 5-2: Consistency with the Growth Centres Development Code ... 30

Table 5-3: Consistency with other SEPPs... 32

Table 5-4: Consistency with section 117 Directions... 32

(5)

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

The Area 20 Precinct of the North West Growth Centre was one of the first Precincts released by the Minister for Planning in 2006, although Precinct planning did not begin until August 2008. The former Minister for Planning decided on 26^th November 2010 that proposed amendments to State

Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (the Growth Centres SEPP) to rezone the Area 20 Precinct to facilitate urban development would be publicly exhibited.

The main elements of the exhibited package included:

• An explanation of the proposed amendments to the Growth Centres SEPP to include statutory provisions for development in the Precinct;

• The draft SEPP Maps;

• A Development Control Plan (DCP) to guide the assessment of subdivision and development applications.

A draft Section 94 Contributions Plan was not prepared by Blacktown City Council to support the exhibited planning package and will be exhibited separately by Council once finalised.

When complete, the suite of documents will:

• Rezone and establish development standards for the Area 20 Precinct;

• Include controls to meet residential density targets and improve design quality outcomes; and

• Identify local infrastructure to support future residents.

Following public exhibition of the draft Plan and associated planning documents, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I), in collaboration with Blacktown City Council (BCC), has

undertaken an extensive review process to finalise the documents.

This report documents the public consultation process, summarises the issues raised both in

submissions and during further discussion with State agencies and other stakeholders, and reports on how they have been addressed in the finalisation of the Precinct Plan.

1.2 Summary of key changes

The key changes made to the exhibited Precinct Planning Package include:

• The identification of an area surrounding the railway station where Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions will be reviewed in the near future in collaboration with the North West Rail Link Project Team (refer to Section 4.4.2);

• An expanded higher density housing zone within walking distance of the proposed new railway station near Cudgegong Road in line with Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles (refer to Section 4.6);

• A rationalised public open space network that better caters for the nature of the projected population and provides more developable land in strategic locations. The network comprises less land for sporting open space, but provides improved passive open space areas and better access for all future residents (refer to Section 4.8);

• A reduced provision of retail floor space in the village centre that reinforces the established retail hierarchy in the vicinity (refer to Section 4.7);

• Relocation of the primary school to east of the creek line where it is situated amongst the majority of new housing and therefore within walking distance of more residents (refer to Section 4.5);

(6)

• A revised local stormwater drainage strategy that has constrained the footprint of raingardens proposed to treat stormwater thereby reducing the local development contributions attributable to the construction of drainage infrastructure (refer to Section 4.9).

1.3 Summary of the Precinct Plan

The revised Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) for the Precinct is included at Appendix A of this report.

Table 1-1 summarises the main planning outcomes for the final Precinct Plan.

Table 1-1: Summary of planning outcomes for the Area 20 Precinct

Development parameters Exhibited Plan Revised Plan

Gross site area (Ha)^A 204 204

Rouse Hill Regional Park & Rouse Hill House Estate (Ha)

41 41

Open space and conservation areas (Ha) 21 19

Drainage (Ha) 7 5

Flood prone lands (Ha) 17 17

Other non-developable area (Ha)^B 69 69

Residential net developable area (Ha) 96 98

Yield (dwellings) (approx.) 2,200 2,500

Net density (dwellings/Ha) 23 25

Population (approx.) 6,000 6,400

Village centre and mixed use zones (Ha) 4 4

Retail gross floor area (m²) 16,500 12,500

Employment land (Ha) 6 6

Other public infrastructure (i.e. rail corridor, water reservoir, schools, switching station) (Ha)

24 24

A Areas of land not subject to the Precinct Plan (i.e. Rouse Hill Regional Park and Rouse Hill House Estate) have been excluded from the gross site area.

B Other non-developable land includes: NWRL corridor, station and car parks; schools; switching station; water reservoir;

Feeder 9JA electrical easement; proposed s94 and collector roads, existing local and classified roads.

(7)

2 Exhibition Details

2.1 Exhibited Materials

The following documentation was publicly exhibited as part of the draft Precinct Planning Package for the Area 20 Precinct:

• Explanation of the intended effect of the proposed amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (SEPP);

• Draft SEPP Maps;

• Draft Development Control Plan (DCP);

• Draft Indicative Layout Plan (ILP);

• Precinct Planning Report;

• Background Technical Reports;

• Biodiversity Certification Consistency Report; and

• Compliance with Statutory Directions, North West Growth Centre Structure Plan and Growth Centres Development Code.

A draft Section 94 Contributions Plan has not been placed on exhibition and is presently being prepared by Blacktown City Council. The draft Section 94 Plan is expected to be exhibited soon.

A Guide to the Exhibition brochure and Fact Sheet were also available to explain the exhibition material.

2.2 Exhibition Period

The draft Precinct Planning Package was publicly exhibited for 68 days from 6 December 2010 to 11 February 2011. This extended exhibition period was planned in consideration of the Christmas School Holidays.

2.3 Exhibition Venues

The draft Precinct Planning Package was available to the public at the following locations:

• Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Level 5, 10 Valentine Avenue, Parramatta;

• Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 23 - 33 Bridge St, Sydney;

• Blacktown City Council, 62 Flushcombe Road, Blacktown;

• Vinegar Hill Memorial Library, 29 Main Street, Rouse Hill Town Centre;

• Growth Centres web site;

• Department of Planning and Infrastructure web site.

(8)

2.4 Public Notice

Advertisements were placed in the following newspapers:

Table 2-1: Public notification

Media Appearance Dates Placement

Sydney Morning Herald 06/12/10 Government Noticeboard

Rouse Hill Times 07/12/10 Public Notices

Hills News 07/12/10 Public Notices

2.5 Notification of Land Owners

The Department wrote to 77 landowners representing 94 lots on 30 November 2010, 6 days before the exhibition period was planned to begin, advising of the public exhibition.

2.6 Notification of Key Stakeholders

The Department wrote to 63 other key stakeholders on 6 December 2010 advising of the public exhibition. These stakeholders included the Local Councils, State Government Agencies, and environmental and development industry interest groups.

2.7 Exhibition Information Sessions

The Department undertook information sessions located at the Rouse Hill House & Farm Visitor Centre at the beginning of the exhibition period on the following dates and times:

• Thursday 9 December, 12pm to 8pm;

• Friday 10 December, 10am to 4pm;

• Saturday 11 December, 10am to 2pm.

The public was given the opportunity to meet with staff of the Department to discuss the draft Plan for Area 20. Landowners were also encouraged to book an appointment with the Precinct Project

Manager during these sessions to discuss their land in more detail.

The information sessions were well received by the public, with visits from landowners representing around 40 properties within and near the Precinct over the three days. Departmental staff offered information, such as electronic copies of the exhibition documentation on CD, advice and help to landowners, including assistance in writing submissions and guidance on the planning package.

(9)

3 Submissions Summary

3.1 Number of submissions

A total of 53 submissions were received on the Area 20 Precinct. Submissions were accepted by mail, fax and email. All submissions are listed and summarised at Appendix B. A summary of

submissions grouped into major stakeholder groups is provided at Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Summary of submissions

Received From No. of Submissions

State Government Agencies & Utilities Providers 11

Local Government (Blacktown & The Hills) 2

Landowners (incl. adjoining and nearby) 39

Landowner Groups 1

TOTAL 53

3.2 Late Submissions

While the formal closing date for submissions was the close of public exhibition on 11 February 2011, a small number of submissions were still received and considered after the close of exhibition.

3.3 Response to Submissions

Authors of all submissions received within the period up to and including 6 April 2009 were sent a letter of acknowledgement. Following gazettal of the Precinct Plan, further correspondence will be sent to all land owners and all those who made submissions to advise of the Minister’s decision and to advise in general terms of how matters raised have been responded to. This report provides more detail of how specific issues raised in submissions have been dealt with and is to be publicly available following gazettal of the Precinct Plan.

3.4 Issues raised in Submissions

All submissions received were read by Department staff and issues raised were categorised according to a category list. These categories have generally been used as the section headings in the following section (Section 4) where key issues are considered in detail. Individual submissions are summarised in Appendix B.

Prominent issues that have arisen out of submissions include:

• Rezoning of land for open space, flooding or drainage purposes;

• Indicative road layout;

• Location of the proposed primary school;

• Densities proposed in the residential areas;

• Retail floor space provision in the village centre;

• Timing and value of land to be acquired;

• North West Rail Link and transport.

(10)

4 Consideration of issues

This section identifies the issues raised in submissions, and also those raised in ongoing discussions with state agencies and key stakeholder groups. In responding to the issues raised, the Department has formed a position by balancing a range of competing views, in the context of state planning policies and guidelines, and informed where necessary by additional specialist advice. Where changes have been made to the Precinct Planning Package since exhibition, these are summarised below along with a discussion of key issues raised. Appendix B provides a summary of issues raised in submissions together with a cross-reference to the relevant section dealing with that particular issue.

It is important to note that due to the complexity of issues dealt with in Precinct Planning, in some cases it is not possible to respond specifically to every issue in individual submissions. Reference should be made to the revised Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) and associated documentation for specific information on how the changes to the plan since exhibition affect individual properties.

Blacktown City Council provided detailed comments on the draft Precinct Plan and a number of the technical studies. The Department has worked closely with Council following exhibition to address key issues identified in Council’s submission.

4.1 Precinct boundary review

The review of the boundary of the Area 20 Precinct was implemented at the beginning of the precinct planning process in late 2008. The Precinct Boundary Review Process was undertaken prior to detailed master planning and environmental analysis taking place and involved community and State agency consultation. As a result of this process, a partial release of the Riverstone East Precinct was gazetted in early 2009 and the total area of the adjusted Precinct increased to 245 hectares.

The boundary change incorporates the majority of the natural drainage/servicing catchment by nominally following the ridge line and in doing so, fully utilises existing and/or planned utilities infrastructure. The boundary also aligns with cadastral boundaries to avoid complex administrative problems such as split zoning. Importantly, the boundary change will allow urban development to occur in line with infrastructure provision.

A number of submissions were received from nearby landowners outside the Area 20 Precinct, within Riverstone East, regarding their inclusion in the Area 20 Precinct. The Precinct Boundary Review Process is based upon Assessment Criteria established to ensure the orderly and efficient delivery of land to the market. The key criterion for Area 20 was found to be servicing and drainage catchments, as additional land to the west of the original boundary and up to the ridgeline is able to be serviced with existing and/or planned sewerage and drinking water infrastructure. Land north of the boundary is unable to be serviced in the short term and has not been included in Area 20, as it does not meet the Assessment Criteria established as part of the Precinct Boundary Review Process.

4.2 Land acquisition and land values

Certain land within the Area 20 Precinct has been identified for acquisition by public authorities for purposes such as the NWRL corridor, roads, open space and drainage. The Department received a number of submissions from landowners who were concerned about the timing of land acquisition and the value of land when it is acquired.

As stated in the exhibited Precinct Planning Report, land will be acquired on an as needs basis.

Timing of acquisition for local drainage land, playing fields and open space is dependent upon the rate of development and therefore demand for these facilities, and the availability of Section 94 funds.

Acquisition value will be the market value of the land as determined in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. Further details on the acquisition process and timing should be sought from the relevant acquisition authority.

Several landowners in the Precinct will be impacted by acquisition by more than one public authority.

This is particularly prevalent in the southern portion of the Precinct where trunk drainage land, open

(11)

space and the rail corridor intersect. The Department is working with these authorities to determine whether this acquisition may be coordinated.

As was identified in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan, land is required for the NWRL corridor, train stabling yard and commuter car parking. The timing of acquisition will be determined as part of the initial scoping stages of the project definition, which is presently being progressed by the NWRL project team. The Department understands that land will need to be acquired in time for construction to begin on the rail line, but a firm timeframe will not be available until the design process is sufficiently progressed.

The exhibited draft Plan identified a proposed school site on the southern side of Rouse Road and indicated that this land would be acquired by the Department of Education and Communities (DEC) in accordance with a proposed SP2 Infrastructure zoning. Although the DEC still intends to acquire a school site in Area 20, as discussed in Section 4.5, the preferred potential school site has moved to a location on Terry Road in the eastern portion of the Precinct. In accordance with current DEC policy, DEC has asked that the school site be zoned the same as the adjoining land use, in this case zone R3 Medium Density Residential. The ‘potential school site’ has been identified in the ILP and is proposed to be acquired by DEC when the need arises. The landowners impacted by this school site should consult with DEC in regards to the acquisition process and timing.

Given that the school site will have an underlying residential zoning, the landowner is entitled to submit a development application that is consistent with the provisions of the Precinct Plan and DCP.

In this case it is advisable that the applicant consult with DEC prior to lodging an application that may preclude the future use of the site for educational purposes.

4.3 Indicative Layout Plan

The design philosophy behind the ILP is to enhance and build on the existing social, environmental, landscape and cultural values of the Precinct. The current street and subdivision pattern, surrounding land uses and development areas, the existing rural character, and landownership patterns, all influence urban design outcomes.

The key issues raised in submissions in relation to the ILP were the indicative road layout and the location and amount of land set aside for parks and sports fields, the school, flooding and drainage purposes.

In reviewing the ILP as part of the post-exhibition work for the Precinct, all issues raised in

submissions were investigated. Amendments were made taking into consideration the issues raised by individual land owners, however, due to conflicting outcomes, it was not always possible to directly address and resolve individual issues. Where changes to respond to individual issues were possible in the context of all competing priorities, these have been made. Additionally, some land owners have reduced affectation by zonings for public purposes as a result of the precinct-wide review.

The review of open space, drainage and residential structure has in some cases changed the location of roads to accommodate a better subdivision and development outcome. Changes to the indicative road layout lead to minor changes elsewhere throughout the Precinct as all elements of the ILP are interrelated.

The centre-lines of new local roads have been aligned to follow existing property boundaries where possible and new collector roads have been positioned to maximise connections to arterial roads, planned intersections and roads outside the Precinct. In some instances, it is not possible to centre roads on property boundaries where it borders public land or would result in a poor development outcome. Local roads are also positioned so that residential development has frontage to public land, such as the Water Reservoir, open space and drainage land, to maximise surveillance of these lands in accordance with urban design principles. However, it should be noted that the proposed layout of local roads is indicative only and when smaller lot subdivision occurs roads may be placed in alternative locations subject to Council approval.

(12)

Land identified for the purposes of parks and sports fields, the school site and drainage have been identified based on the projected population for the whole Precinct, as indicated in the exhibited Precinct Planning Report. These sites have been identified based on future demand for these facilities and locations have been chosen based on land suitability and accessibility. Opportunities including the co-location of open space and drainage land in particular, have been utilised to create more

developable land within the Precinct.

As a result of changes to the ILPs since public exhibition, the residential net developable area of the Precinct has increased by approximately 2 hectares, which is considered significant given that the increased developable area has been accompanied by an increase in residential densities over this area.

4.4 Transport

A number of issues were raised in relation to the public transport infrastructure proposed as part of the Precinct Plan, particularly the North West Rail Link and access to and from the new railway station.

The Area 20 Precinct will benefit from its proximity to a public transport options, including the NW T-Way, two new railway stations and major bus routes along Schofields and Rouse Road, all within walking distance. It follows that the Precinct should seek to encourage walking and cycling throughout the Precinct and to and from adjoining areas, such as Rouse Hill Town Centre. The distribution of residential densities across the Precinct is based on the premise of a future mode shift to walking and cycling to key activity centres, away from using private motor vehicles. Therefore, the Department has tried to maximise the opportunities for walking and cycling and has given high priority to residential amenity and pedestrian safety issues when considering suggested changes to the road network in particular.

Future pedestrian access between the higher density area within the Precinct and Rouse Hill Town Centre will be across the intersection of Windsor Road and Schofields Road and this has been raised as a potential concern for both pedestrian accessibility and the functioning of the road network itself.

While pedestrian access will be provided on both sides of Schofields Road, access will need to remain safe and convenient if mode shares to car are to be reduced. Increased residential development in the vicinity will increase pedestrian activity, which is likely to progressively reduce the available ‘green time’ for vehicles. Advice received by the Department suggests that the best opportunity to reduce the conflict between pedestrians and cars in this location is by way of a future grade separated

intersection that incorporates a new pedestrian facility. The former Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has identified a footprint for a future grade-separated intersection and the land requested has been reserved for this purpose in the Precinct Plan.

In its submission to the exhibition, Transport for NSW (TNSW) (former Department of Transport (DoT)) raised several issues relating to land use and development in the Precinct, and integration with the proposed rail infrastructure and other modes of transport. The Department sought further specialist advice on these issues (see report in Appendix C) and has discussed these further with Council and TNSW as part of finalising the Precinct Plan. It should also be noted that the Department discussed with TNSW all issues raised in other submissions that related to the NWRL to ensure that these issues were considered as part of the NWRL project design.

Further submissions suggested that the Department should make provision for a ‘F3 and M7 Link Road and Very Fast Train Corridor’. The Department is not aware that such a transport corridor exists to a level of detail that would allow reservation and acquisition. The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 identifies a long-term Outer Sydney Orbital corridor serving Western Sydney and linking to the Central Coast. This corridor does not impact the Area 20 Precinct. The Department will continue to work with TNSW to ensure long-term potential corridors are addressed as part of land use planning for the North West Growth Centre.

4.4.1 North West Rail Link

The current Government has sought to fast-track the NWRL through the establishment of a project team within TNSW charged with delivering the project. The Department has actively consulted with the project team following exhibition and held discussions on how best the Precinct Planning for Area 20

(13)

can be integrated with the NWRL project design, given that detailed planning and design work will be engaged in the near future. TNSW had particular concerns with the proposed land uses and

development immediately surrounding the railway station and how this would relate to the detailed design of the station itself, commuter car parks and access points. The NWRL project team is in the process of engaging technical work that will determine the layout of the station, car parks and the rail line, which will in turn impact the layout of the adjoining village centre and industrial area. The preparation of detailed DCP provisions for the Cudgegong Station Area will be delayed and reviewed in collaboration with the detailed design work for the rail infrastructure to ensure that development is coordinated in a manner to achieve the best overall outcomes for what will be an important station precinct.

The NWGC Structure Plan identifies an indicative northerly alignment for an extension to the NWRL east of Windsor Road through the Box Hill Precincts and connecting with the Richmond Line at Vineyard. Several submissions objected to what was seen as a change from this earlier position. As discussed in the exhibited Precinct Planning Report, the inclusion of the revised rail corridor, railway station and train stabling yard within Area 20 was the result of extensive consultation with the then DoT to ensure that the needs of the NWRL were adequately addressed. The Department understands that the alternative corridors assessed by DoT were not viable due to the comparative higher cost, impact on existing development and the Rouse Hill Regional Park and more topographical constraints than the Schofields corridor shown in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan. However, TNSW is currently investigating long term transport corridor protection in the region, including the provision of public transport to the Box Hill and Vineyard Precincts.

In addition to the route of the corridor, several submissions suggested that the corridor be extended further west beyond Area 20 to link up with the Richmond Line and to extend as far as the Marsden Park Industrial Precinct. TNSW has committed to further investigate opportunities to extend the line and the design of the NWRL will not preclude extension options.

The Department would undertake to amend the NWGC Structure Plan to show the revised corridor through Area 20 and to encompass the outcomes of these further investigations being undertaken by TNSW in the future.

Several submissions, including Council’s, presented questions about the design of the rail

infrastructure and requested further design detail to understand the implications for surrounding land use and development. The Department commissioned LFA (Pacific) Pty Ltd to further investigate the known topographic and rail engineering constraints and the outcomes of this urban design study (see report in Appendix C) informed the revised Precinct Plan. The strategic study aimed to identify opportunities for better integration of the rail line, station and commuter car parks with surrounding land use and development, including access to and from and circulation around the station. ARUP also prepared elevations and indicative cross-sections of the rail infrastructure to assist in this urban design exercise. The study focused on the station area, the proposed north-south road crossings and the creek crossing. The study was used to determine the local road intersection locations along Cudgegong Road and Terry Road (extension) each side of the bridge and the viability of proposed pedestrian/cycle routes around the rail corridor.

The study informed the review of the ILP and DCP Schedule, but has also highlighted the constraints and opportunities to be considered as part of the detailed planning and design of the rail line, station and commuter car parks and in the review of DCP provisions for the Cudgegong Station Area. Some of the key issues identified and to be explored further as part of the NWRL design within the Precinct include:

• The embankments associated with the Cudgegong Road and Terry Road (extension) bridge crossings will likely not be contained within the existing road corridor and will require intersections to be set back as far as 100 metres;

• The total construction footprints for the two road crossings in the Precinct, including ramped embankments, will be in excess of 200 metres. These works should be undertaken as part of the NWRL project;

• Access to the commuter car parks and station is made difficult due to the elevation of Cudgegong Road bridge over the rail line, particularly the northern car park;

(14)

• Minor changes to the level of the rail line over the creek line may introduce opportunities for a continuous pedestrian route along the creek line;

• A continuous link and line of sight may be established from the southern commuter car park through to the village centre north of the station, as the rail line is in cutting;

• Activation of the southern commuter car park needs to be encouraged to improve safety and surveillance;

• Multiple constraints exist at the Cudgegong Road crossing (e.g. switching station, Feeder 9JA;

elevation and embankments), which will make residential development challenging;

• insufficient head clearance under the Schofields Road bridge to allow a continuous linear pedestrian link with The Ponds development along Second Ponds Creek and an alternative link will be provided at the proposed signalised intersection of Cudgegong and Schofields Roads;

• The Tallawong Road crossing of the train stabling yard would involve a bridge span of

approximately 150 metres at the proposed location. If this proves cost prohibitive, an alternative north-south link is considered critical to the road network.

The eastern-most section of the rail corridor within the Precinct is proposed to be tunnel. While it is assumed the land above the tunnel will be appropriate for the type of development proposed in the Precinct Plan (i.e. open space and higher density residential), there is a degree of uncertainty around the design of the rail line and its depth below the existing ground surface. Due to this uncertainty, TNSW has requested that applications for development above the corridor be referred to TNSW and RailCorp for specialist input on corridor protection, noise and vibration and structural integrity in particular. Given that the higher density development above the rail corridor is likely to require excavation of more than 2 metres below ground level, concurrence will likely be required from TNSW (or RailCorp) before development consent may be granted under the provisions of the State

Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the Infrastructure SEPP). In addition, it is anticipated that Council would consult with TNSW in relation to development of its open space assets above the rail corridor.

A further discussion of the noise impacts associated with the NWRL is contained in Section 4.14.

4.4.2 Cudgegong Station Area and surrounds

As discussed above, the detailed DCP provisions for the area surrounding the station will be reviewed in collaboration with the NWRL project. Most of the issues raised in submissions that relate to this area are subject to this review. Some of the issues that will need to be addressed as part of the DCP provisions for the Cudgegong Station Area include the:

• ILP for the station area;

• Pedestrian, cycle and traffic movements;

• Station location and access points;

• Indicative structure and layout of the village centre;

• Distribution of commercial uses within the village centre and south of the station;

• Activation of the commuter car parks and light industrial area to improve safety and surveillance;

• Local and regional bus routes and bus stops;

• Car parking arrangements;

• Sustainability principles;

• Location of stormwater management facilities.

Further amendments may be considered to other parts of the Area 20 DCP Schedule once the detailed planning for the Cudgegong Station Area is complete. This may include opportunities for modified parking rates in and around the station area.

(15)

4.4.3 Road network

As part of the post-exhibition review of the Area 20 Precinct Planning documents, a precinct-wide review of the road network was undertaken. This included updating the traffic model that was prepared prior to exhibition to reflect changes to the development layout that emerged from further development of the ILP as well as to incorporate more up to date information on neighbouring

development areas, such as the Box Hill Precincts. In addition, a number of alternative scenarios were tested using the model to respond to issues raised in submissions and during post-exhibition

consultation with stakeholders. These alternative scenarios mainly dealt with the relationship between the road network and the rail corridor, station and commuter car parks.

Council made specific comments on the proposed road network and hierarchy and re-iterated their strong preference to retain the proposed intersection treatment at ‘Commercial Road West’/ Windsor Road and not to extend this road over Second Ponds Creek. Council also recommeded collector road status for Cudgegong Road, given its future role in serving the station, and sub-arterial status for Tallawong Road, consistent with broader strategic network planning for the North West.

The Department engaged Road Delay Solutions Pty Ltd to undertake additional modelling and assessment of potential changes to the Precinct road network (see report in Appendix C), and on the basis of that work consulted with Council and TNSW before finalising the road network.

The review of the road network generally confirmed the broad network shown in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan. However, it is anticipated that further localised changes may be required once more detailed planning is undertaken for the Cudgegong Station Area.

Key changes to the road network arising from post-exhibition investigations that have been incorporated into the revised ILP include:

• Upgrading Tallawong Road to a sub-arterial road;

• Future signalised intersection at Cudgegong Road/ Schofields Road to allow both turning movements, not just left in-left out as proposed in the exhibited draft Plan and approved Schofields Road upgrade plan;

• Upgrading and/or confirming collector road status for Rouse Road, Cudgegong Road, Terry Road and ‘Commercial Road West’.

The network assumes that all proposed crossings of the rail corridor are retained, together with the agreed intersections on Schofields Road, and that the local road crossings are retained as part of the NWRL project. In the case of the Terry Road extension, provision should be made to allow a future crossing of the rail line should the local road not be constructed in time. TNSW will need to consult with Council in relation to the proposed upgrades to Cudgegong Road and Terry Road extension to ensure that the bridge works are coordinated with Council’s works program.

In addition to the above changes, minor modifications to the local road network have been made to respond to other issues, in particular revision of the trunk drainage strategy. Where the boundaries of drainage or open space land have been adjusted, road locations have also been modified accordingly.

Where possible, taking into account other considerations, roads have been adjusted to respond to specific issues in submissions. It has not been possible to achieve this in all cases, however, it is important to note that the local road network is indicative only and can be modified to address detailed matters at the subdivision stage.

4.4.4 Alternative road network scenarios

The local road network for Area 20 has been based upon the existing road framework and subdivision layout in order to minimise the costs involved in local road construction and to faciltitate development in an orderly and efficient manner. The road network included in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan represented a position agreed with the then RTA and DoT throughout the planning process, particularly the connections into the broader arterial road framework. The Area 20 Precinct Plan therefore builds on the established regional road network and assumes the following road network and connections:

(16)

• Schofields Road will be upgraded to a transit-boulevard with four traffic lanes and provision for six lanes should it be necessary in the future;

• The Schofields Road/ Windsor Road intersection will be upgraded in the future and will incorporate improved pedestran provisions;

• Tallawong Road is to be re-aligned at the intersection with Schofields Road to connect with Ridgeline Drive and will be up-graded to a sub-arterial standard

• Cudgegong Road intersection with Schofields Road will be upgraded initially to a left in-left out intersection, moving to a signalised T-intersection in the future. The road may also be upgraded to a collector road to serve the railway station and commuter car parks;

• Terry Road will be upgraded to a local collector road and extended south to a future signalised intersection with Schofields Road and The Ponds Boulevard;

• Rouse Road and its crossing of Second Ponds Creek will be upgraded to a local collector road and to provide flood-free access;

• A new local collector road opposite Commercial Road (and known as ‘Commercial Road West’) will be constructed with left in-left out access to Windsor Road and linking to Terry Road.

It is noted that the revised traffic modelling suggests local road status for both ‘Commercial Road West’ and Cudgegong Road. However, given these roads are proposed to carry buses and that the design of the railway station, commuter car parking arrangements and the upgrade of the Windsor/

Schofields Road intersection are uncertain at this time, at a strategic level, it is appropriate to retain collector road classification for these roads. It can be seen from the discussion of alternative road network scenarios below that the classification of roads in the Precinct is heavily dependent on future decisions relating to the Schofields/Windsor Road intersection, station access and north-south crossings of the rail line.

4.4.4.1 ‘Commercial Road West’ role and function

The former DoT in its submission on the draft Precinct Plan suggested that ‘Commercial Road West’

should be extended over Second Ponds Creek to the new railway station to improve accessibility for those residents in the eastern portion of the Precinct. It should be noted that the Department had already considered accessibility for these residents and a pedestrian/cycle route was proposed in this location across the creek line in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan. In addition, the residential densities proposed in the eastern part of the Precinct have been established based on walking access to Rouse Hill Town Centre and its proposed railway station. The Department undertook to test this scenario as part of the revised traffic modelling.

The traffic modelling indicates that while the prolongation of ‘Commercial Road West’ over the

creekline may improve local accessibility, it would divert a significant amount of traffic off Rouse Road and may result in it being downgraded to a local road. The additional crossing of the creek is

unwarranted as the planned crossings within the Precinct, Schofields Road and Rouse Road, will be able to accommodate the likely future traffic demand. While ‘Commercial Road West’ would be an entirely new road, Rouse Road is an existing road and the existing causeway needs to be upgraded to provide flood-free access in any event. Under the revised Precinct Plan the walking distance for those residents east of Second Ponds Creek to the station is in the order of 500 metres across the proposed pedestrian footbridge. Alternatively, the driving distance is less than 1.5 kilometres to the commuter car parks and together with the local bus routes established along Rouse Road, residents would have ample access to the station and village centre. Road Delay Solutions found that the configuration of the intersection with Windsor Road would operate satisfactorily as a left out-only intersection.

Further to its original submission, TNSW recently recommended that the ‘Commercial Road West’

connection to Windsor Road allow unrestricted traffic movements and that the extension across Second Ponds Creek be further extended through the proposed village centre to connect with Tallawong Road, west of the Precinct. TNSW presented several arguments in support of this change, including improving local access to the station and delayed upgrading of the Windsor/Schofields Road intersection. These changes have not been supported by the Department and Blacktown City Council.

(17)

Nonetheless, the Department sought to understand the implications of such a scenario and this was included in the revised traffic modelling.

The traffic modelling questioned the value of having a fully signalised intersection at Windsor Road if

‘Commercial Road West’ is not extended over Second Ponds Creek, given the intersection of Windsor and Schofields Road is planned to be upgraded, and indeed accomodated by the Area 20 Precinct Plan. Furthermore, this arrangement could be in direct physical conflict with the future grade-

separation of Windsor Road at Schofields Road due to the proximity of the intersections and the need to install on and off ramps to Windsor Road. If the scenario allows unrestricted traffic movements at the Windsor Road intersection and full prolongation to Tallawong Road, the road ceases to serve a local road function and functions as a higher order road. Under this scenario, ‘Commercial Road West’

will encourage traffic from outside the Precinct to by-pass any possible congestion at the Windsor Road intersection with Schofields Road.

The proposal would result in two arterial roads, a major intersection, a sub-arterial and NWRL corridor all within a distance 400 metres and enclosing the eastern corner of the Precinct.

Nonetheless, should it be found in the future that significant benefits may be gained by allowing unrestricted turning movements at Windsor Road and residential amenity is not compromised, then the revised Precinct Plan would not preclude this change. The increase in traffic would not likely elevate the classification of the road beyond the collector road classification proposed in the Precinct Plan if it is not combined with an extension over Second Ponds Creek.

4.4.4.2 Tallawong Road issues

Landcom in its submission on the draft Precinct Plan expressed concern regarding the through traffic that will be conveyed along Ridgeline Drive (i.e. collector) within the Ponds from Tallawong Road (i.e.

sub-arterial) north of Schofields Road. While it is understood the road network and hierarchy in Alex Avenue, including Ridgeline Drive, was established with this through traffic in mind, the Department reviewed this aspect of the traffic modelling to ascertain whether the traffic impacts were consistent with the road classification. In addition, given the difficulty in crossing the proposed stabling yard, it was also considered necessary to test the possibility of removing the proposed Tallawong Road connection with Schofields Road altogether.

The revised traffic modelling found that with the advent of the railway station and commuter car parks, the traffic generated along Hambledon Road, Alex Avenue and Ridgeline Drive is in line with their established classification within the hierarchy. Hambledon Road will continue to convey the major traffic flows through the Alex Avenue Precinct. The modelling also highlighted that the expected traffic on Tallawong Road may not necessaily warrant sub-arterial status, though the retention of this classification may be strategically important.

It was also found that the closure of Tallawong Road north of Schofields Road would impact local accessibility in a north-south direction, divert traffic to east-west local road corridors immediately north of the station and significantly hinder bus services to the station from Schofields Road. Although, it has been determined that the increases on Cudgegong Road, the proposed Oak Street extension to the west, and Terry Road extension would not result in an unsatisfactory level of service at their

intersection with Schofields Road.

4.5 Education provision issues

The Department and Council have worked closely with the NSW Department of Education and Communities (DEC) (formerly Department of Education and Training) both before and after exhibition to identify a preferred site for a public primary school which satisfies DEC criteria.

In its submission to the exhibition process, DEC raised concerns with the current proposed school site west of Second Ponds Creek. Further consultation with DEC following exhibition has confirmed that the preferred location for a school is in the eastern portion of the Precinct where it would be within walking distance of the majority of the residential population. The eastern portion of the Precinct will

(18)

have at least 500 dwellings more than the western part and offers better opportunities for walking access for students and parents.

Despite community uses and sporting open space often being co-located with educational facilities, as proposed in the exhibited draft ILP, the current DEC criteria for school sites does not place strong emphasis on this principle, given that primary schools will incorporate internal recreational areas. This was considered in selecting the new school site and seeking to balance the location against other land uses.

The Anglican Schools Corporation also raised potential issues with the proposed school being so close to the existing Anglican College, given the potential for additional traffic generation on Rouse Road and concerns about pedestrian safety. This was consistent with the views of some other landowners and alternative locations were suggested.

Alternative school locations were considered by the Department in consultation with DEC and it was concluded that the revised location on Terry Road, as shown in the ILP, best suits the Precinct Plan and DEC requirements.

The revised location offers better car and bus access than the previous location, is within the larger housing catchment and will reduce the traffic conflicts on the section of Rouse Road alongside the Anglican College. Students will still be within walking distance of the sporting complex west of Second Ponds Creek, with shared paths provided along Rouse Road and a pedestrian footbridge across the creek line. Furthermore, the new location occupies land formally occupied by a different public use in the exhibited draft Plan (i.e. open space) and does not disadvantage other land owners.

The new school site will be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential as per the adjoining zone and consistent with current DEC policy on the acquisition and zoning of school sites (refer to Sections 4.2 and 4.20 for a discussion on this matter).

4.6 Residential land uses

The exhibited draft Precinct Plan arranged higher residential densities around centres, public transport nodes and major roads to take advantage of access to transport and services. The highest densities were proposed within an easy walking distance of Rouse Hill Town Centre and its associated railway station, while slightly higher densities were proposed within walking distance of the existing Rouse Hill Village and the proposed railway station and village centre near Cudgegong Road.

As outlined in the exhibited Precinct Planning Report, medium density residential development was generally proposed within one kilometre of Rouse Hill Town Centre and medium to high density development is proposed within 400 metres. Medium density residential development is also proposed within 400 metres of other activity centres.

Although higher residential densities were proposed around the proposed railway station and village centre near Cudgegong Road, several submissions questioned the extent of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and minimum density requirements for land within this zone, particularly when compared to the densities adjacent to Rouse Hill Town Centre. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles encourage higher densities within the walking catchment (e.g. 800 metres) of railways stations and the Department has undertaken to review the densities around the proposed Cudgegong station in line with these principles and those employed in the eastern portion of the Precinct. The review has resulted in an extended R3 zone to the north of Rouse Road and an increase in residential densities (to a minimum of 45 dwellings per hectare) within close proximity to the station. The R3 zoning of these lands is consistent with previous Precinct Plans (e.g. Alex Avenue) and will promote a range of housing types in achieving the minimum residential density requirements.

At the same time, the Department has tried to encourage housing diversity within the Precinct by retaining the other low density areas proposed in the exhibited draft Precinct Plan. However, it is important to note that the residential densities in the draft SEPP Amendment are minimums, and providing other development standards can be met, applicants can propose residential development at higher densities.

(19)

Housing NSW raised concerns regarding the promotion of housing diversity and a lack of strategies dealing with affordable housing issues. It should be noted that one of the aims of the Precinct Plan is to promote housing choice and affordability and one of the standard objectives for the R3 Medium Density Residential zone is to promote a variety of housing types. This is supplemented by a clause prescribing minimum lot sizes for residential development to facilitate a range of dwelling types, as per previous Precinct Plans. Furthermore, the minimum residential density requirement in the SEPP Amendment aims to achieve the housing target of 2,500 dwellings within the Precinct and each development will contribute to this target. While there are no specific or targeted strategies to deal with housing affordability issues in the Precinct Plan, it is anticipated that the very rezoning of the Precinct and others in the Growth Centres will help to address some of the shortfall in housing in Sydney. The Area 20 Precinct Plan will achieve some of the highest average residential densities of any Precinct in the Growth Centres and it is anticipated that smaller and more affordable dwellings will eventuate.

Given the infrastructure servicing arrangement, it is anticipated that there will be fewer barriers to the roll out of housing in the coming years.

In their submissions, some landowners suggested changing the R2 zone on Terry Road to an R3 zone and increasing the residential densities in this area. This view is not supported, considering the aim of promoting housing diversity within the Precinct. Notwithstanding, the minimum density requirement for this land is slightly higher (than other R2 areas) in recognition of the higher amenity afforded by the fringing open space. In addition, several landowners made suggestions for greater densities and scale of development in certain circumstances. The Department reviewed those options, including options for increasing densities north of ‘Commercial Road West’ and the scale of development immediately south of the road. The revised Precinct Plan retains the controls proposed as part of the exhibited draft Precinct Plan, which provides for a balance between the visual and landscape aspects of the Precinct and the density and scale of development.

The exhibited draft Precinct Plan also proposed very low density residential development in the north- western portion of the Precinct with the aim of conserving landscape quality atop this important ridgeline. It was also considered that this approach would provide a different housing product to that available elsewhere in the Precinct. Several submissions objected to the minimum subdivision lot size in this area of 2,500 square metres and in response, the Department reviewed this position in

association with the other changes to the Precinct Plan. The Department maintains that the retention of a very low density zone in this area is the best way to conserve mature trees and preserve an important component of the existing landscape, while providing an alternative housing product to the market. However, as part of this review it has been determined that the minimum subdivision lot size may be reduced to 2,000 square metres to slightly increase yields, without significantly compromising the objectives for this area.

The Anglican Schools Corporation raised concerns in relation to the intensity of development surrounding the existing Anglican Collage and future amenity. While the Department can appreciate that the area will change significantly from the existing semi-rural character, there is a need to achieve the prescribed development targets for the Growth Centres, as outlined in the North West Structure Plan. Part of the reason the exhibited draft ILP proposed local roads around the perimeter of the school is to provide frontage to and maximise surveillance of the school land, as well as to maximise permeability and access. Interface issues with the school will be a consideration as part of future development applications on adjoining land, in accordance with the provisions of the DCP.

Furthermore, it is anticipated that the local roads will be funded by the developers of adjoining land.

In its submission, Council also provided comment on the Caravan Park Background Study prepared by Elton Consulting for the OK Caravan Park. Council is concerned that because the study did not include interviews with residents, then the results should be treated with caution. While the

Department accepts the short-comings of the study, it should be noted that its intention was to provide a broad overview of the park, not a detailed analysis of demographics. It is anticipated that the

exhibited study may be used by stakeholders as an information resource, providing these limitations are acknowledged.

(20)

4.7 Retail land uses

The draft Precinct Plan proposed a village centre near Cudgegong Road adjacent to the proposed railway station and integrated with the northern commuter car park. The draft Plan provided for a core retail area surrounded by a mixed use fringe to offer some flexibility in the growth of the centre and opportunities for higher density residential development in support of the centre.

SGS Economics and Planning provided retail and employment planning advice for the Precinct. Based on the recommendations of SGS a maximum threshold 16,500 square metres of retail Gross Floor Area (GFA) was applied to the village centre. This was to be accommodated within a core retail area attached to the railway station zoned B2 Local Centre and a mixed use fringe zoned B4 Mixed Use.

The total area of land subject to the B2 and B4 zones equated to almost 4 hectares, which was considered sufficient to permit the maximum allowable floor space, access, car parking and public spaces, with enough flexibility to allow complementary uses and long-term expansion.

Two submissions were received from nearby landowners/developers expressing the view that the provision of retail floor space in the proposed village centre was excessive and that the methodology employed by SGS in arriving at this floor space recommendation was not a standard approach and may have under-estimated the potential impact on nearby centres, particularly Rouse Hill Town Centre. Council also highlighted some inconsistencies in the report. In response to these submissions, the Department engaged Leyshon Consulting to undertake a third party review of SGS’

recommendations as they relate to commercial uses and provide independent retail planning advice for Area 20 (see report in Appendix C).

The analysis undertaken by Leyshon Consulting following exhibition determined that the retail floor space cap may have been over-stated in the SGS work and the resulting draft Precinct Plan. SGS’

analysis did not rely on an industry standard retail impact assessment for the centre and this made it difficult for stakeholders to compare the results of the analysis. Rather, the conclusions were drawn from a strategic employment generation model developed by SGS with the objective of driving job growth in the North West Growth Centre. The SGS work was primarily focused on strategic land use planning and tested the location of the proposed centre in terms of its competitive retail offer, taking into consideration existing and planned centres in the North West Sub-region. Leyshon Consulting found that this approach was not necessarily a reliable method of determining the size of a centre and gauging the potential impact on nearby centres.

It was recommended by Leyshon Consulting that the village centre not be larger than approximately 11,400 square metres of retail GFA and that it should incorporate a full line supermarket anchor store.

It was also found that a centre of this size would have negligible impacts on the existing and planned retailing environment in Rouse Hill Town Centre and other nearby centres. Notwithstanding this cap, a nominal amount of retail was recommended south of the railway station to assist in activating the commuter car parking area.

The revised Precinct Plan establishes a village centre footprint as per the exhibited Plan. However, in light of Leyshon Consulting’s advice to restrict the overall retail floor space, the core retail area (zone B2) has been reduced and the fringing mixed use area (zone B4) has been increased in size. The revised layout allows a degree of flexibility in how the centre develops and the types of uses in the centre, as well as providing the opportunity for long-term re-development and expansion.

The Precinct Plan establishes a maximum commercial floor space cap of 12,500 square metres of GFA across the Cudgegong Station Area and requires that the detailed DCP address the distribution of retail, business and office uses within area. The prescribed quantum of commercial floor space is higher than that recommended for the centre itself (i.e. 11,400 square metres GFA) to allow a nominal amount of retail and business development south of the station to serve workers and to assist in activating the commuter car park land and light industrial area to improve safety and surveillance. The Plan also requires that the majority of commercial floor space is established in the centre and that any retailing within the light industrial and railway land south of the station does not undermine the centre.

This approach will allow detailed development controls to be devised for the centre in conjunction with the design of the station and commuter car parks.

(21)

The exhibited draft ILP identified preferred locations for neighbourhood services; one on Rouse Road and a second on Terry Road. A review of these locations post-exhibition has resulted in the removal of the Rouse Road location on the basis of it being too close to the proposed village centre on

Cudgegong Road to be viable. The second location has been retained given that access to Rouse Hill Town Centre will be more difficult across the busy Windsor Road. In this instance market forces will determine if a small amount of retail is feasible in this location in the long-term.

4.8 Open space and recreation

The draft Precinct Plan included provision for new areas of open space including parks, sports fields and courts to cater for a range of active and informal recreational activities. Open space was provided in accordance with guidelines in the Growth Centres Development Code and with input from

Blacktown City Council on their standards and rates of use of existing sporting facilities.

Throughout the exhibition period, a number of landowners raised concerns in regards to open space.

These included questioning why their land had been identified as proposed open space or questioning the overall rate of provision for open space throughout the Precinct.

Advice received by the Department from Elton Consulting questioned the number of sporting fields provided and it was resolved to review this issue with Council following the exhibition period. Elton Consulting found that the projected demographic profile and age structure of the incoming population changed when additional higher density housing was introduced around the railway station and village centre. When compared to other nearby release areas the Precinct has a larger fraction of higher density housing. This dwelling mix is expected to attract a slightly higher proportion of young adults and older people and a reduced proportion of families with children. It was therefore recommended that a greater emphasis be placed on quality and accessible informal recreation spaces, rather than sporting open space, due to the lower proportion of children and teenagers. Nonetheless, the total quantum of open space was recommended to be maintained at around 20 hectares, in accordance with the Growth Centres Development Code guideline provision rate of 2.83 hectares per 1000 people.

The review of open space and recreational issues considered existing open space resources (i.e.

Rouse Hill Regional Park and Cudgegong Reserve), as well as the inter-relationship with passive recreation spaces such as the riparian corridor and local drainage land. The review sought to ensure that sufficient open space is available to meet the needs of residents while ensuring that land is used efficiently and section 94 contributions are kept as low as possible.

The review was also undertaken in light of Council’s submission on the exhibited draft ILP. For example, Council recommended that a new pocket park be established north of Rouse Road to service the northern part of the Precinct and that the open space provision in the south-east be improved by the extension to the proposed pocket park.

As identified in the exhibited Precinct Planning Report, the urban design approach to open space, public domain, drainage, flooding, riparian zone management and ecological values, was to integrate these elements as much as possible. Wherever possible, open space and recreational facilities have been co-located with other public uses to minimise the amount of developable land being used for these purposes.

The main changes to the open space network resulting from the review include: a consolidation of sporting open space into the single complex west of Second Ponds Creek and reduction in the number of playing fields from 4 to 3; a slight increase in the size of the park located on the south- eastern knoll to compensate for the loss of playing fields from the eastern part of the Precinct, to provide more open space in this area as suggested by Council and consolidate open space in this region, and to take in the high-point as identified in landowner submissions; and re-location of the pocket park on the corner of Cudgegong and Rouse Roads to the location north of Rouse Road to better serve the northern area of the Precinct, as per Council’s recommendation. There have also been minor changes to the location of pedestrian routes around the central riparian corridor mainly due to the difficulty in constructing continuous pathways beneath Schofields Road and the rail line.

(22)

It can be seen by viewing Table 4-1, that in accordance with Elton Consulting’s advice, sporting open space provision has been reduced and the area dedicated to parks and linear open space has been increased. The western playing field complex was preferred to the eastern playing fields included in the exhibited plan, as the western fields are co-located with local drainage infrastructure and flood prone and riparian land.

The review of open space has resulted in a slight reduction of formal open space from 20.5 to 19 hectares. Residents will also benefit from walking access to Rouse Hill Regional Park and from the passive recreation and amenity resource associated with the creek line, which will be held entirely in public ownership. The overall provision of open space within Area 20 meets the guideline provision rate of 2.83 hectares per 1000 people.

Table 4-1: Changes to the Open Space Network

Open Space Type Exhibited Plan (Ha) Revised Plan (Ha)

Cudgegong Reserve 4 4

Sporting fields 8 4.5

Parks 3 4

Parks & linear open space along creek line 5.5 6.5

Total 20.5 19.0

Other^A

Local drainage (passive) 6.5 5

Flood prone land (passive) 17.5 17.5

Rouse Hill Regional Park (incl. Rouse Hill House Estate) (Regional)

41 41

A Regional and passive recreation areas

4.9 Stormwater drainage, flooding and riparian areas

Drainage lands in the Area 20 Precinct have been set aside to treat water flowing from the urban parts of the Precinct before it is discharged into creeks and rivers. Drainage land includes all land that is required to implement the water cycle management strategy across the Precinct, including bio-

retention raingardens, stormwater channels and swales and the Second Ponds Creek corridor that will ultimately receive stormwater from the urban area. Some drainage land also serves a passive or active open space function, such as where parks are co-located with raingardens, or where passive recreation facilities are to be provided adjacent to the creek corridor.

The exhibited draft Precinct Plan for Area 20 established a draft water cycle management strategy identifying how stormwater was to be managed and treated within the Precinct. The strategy relies on both regional and local level trunk drainage infrastructure. Sydney Water is responsible for flood prone land along Second Ponds Creek and has implemented several regional-level detention basins within the Second Ponds Creek catchment as part of the Rouse Hill Trunk Drainage Strategy. This was to be supplemented by local-level infrastructure, including several vegetated drainage channels and 13 precinct-scale bio-retention ‘raingardens’ at key locations along the creek line and in the eastern corner of the Precinct. This was complemented by approximately 20 Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs) at the street level to remove litter and sediment.

In submissions on the draft Precinct Plan, a number of landowners raised concerns in relation to the location and extent of stormwater drainage on their land. Drainage land is required as part of any urban development, even if the land is not affected by flooding. As for other precincts in the North West Growth Centre, a trunk drainage approach is required to ensure stormwater quantity and quality is effectively managed across the Precinct. This is considered necessary given the fragmented nature of the land holdings across the Precinct. Other issues were raised regarding land taken as trunk drainage (i.e. flood prone land) and riparian corridor.

A number of submissions queried why land that is not affected by flooding has been identified for drainage purposes. This is because locating stormwater treatment devices, such as bio-retention