Agenda of Council Meeting - 12 December 2017

Council Meeting

12 December 2017

Item No: C1217 Item 1

Subject: Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan and Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan - Greater Sydney Commission

Prepared By: Tatjana Djuric-Simovic - Executive Strategic Planner

Authorised By: David Birds – Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

This report discusses the revised Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan and associated draft Eastern City District Plan released in October 2017 by the Greater Sydney Commission. The Inner West Council (IWC) is located within the Eastern City District. The Plans are on public exhibition until 15 December 2017.

Council’s officers have carried out a detailed assessment of the draft Plans and have identified a number of issues which are supported but also some points of disagreement. This report considers responses to the various issues within the draft Plans.

The following key objectives are supported:

· collaborative approach in decision making processes between all three tiers of government;

· promotion of a vibrant and safe night-time economy;

· support for a diverse range of small businesses, including creative industries;

· improved walking and cycling network and provision of open space of the Green Grid;

· protection of industrial lands from conversion into residential or any other land uses that would hinder their role and function;

· support for protection and improvement of environmental health of the District’s coast and waterways; and

· support for increased urban tree canopy.

The Plan also contain a number of key elements that are opposed:

· The spatial elements of the Plans largely overlook the Inner West Council with only the Sydenham to Bankstown centres identified, for example the Parramatta Road Corridor is overlooked;

· Centres along the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor are identified for high density residential housing with little consideration of their suitability due to issues such as aircraft noise and loss of industrial lands close to the CBD;

· Continued city-wide strategic planning based on private car dependency, including the ongoing expansion of inner city motorways;

· Ongoing planning of metropolitan centres without considering the local economic factors and local sustainability; and

· Affordable housing being identified as an issue but with little commitment to addressing the issue through land use planning mechanisms.

Some of the key issues the final Plans should address are:

· the need for Government support and investment in the delivery of affordable housing, public spaces, social infrastructure and services;

· a value capture mechanism for major renewal projects to provide adequate funding for housing, physical and social infrastructure and services;

· the integration of urban planning with digital technologies to create a smart city;

· further details on targets for affordable housing;

· consideration of how facilities in non-government schools could be made available for community use;

· Parramatta Road corridor to be identified as a linear group of mixed use strategic centres supported by excellent public transport and community infrastructure;

· Callan Park to be identified as an important public open space with natural and built heritage;

· Council’s priorities for the Bays Precinct related to public and active transport, public access to the foreshore, public recreation facilities, affordable housing and the provision of low cost spaces for creative and start-up businesses and activities;

· location of future public parks and recreational facilities to meet the needs of the existing and future population resulting from the proposed urban growth; and

· new locations for waste recycling and management.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. Receive and note the Report;

2. Adopts the proposed responses in this Report; and

3. Prepare a submission to the Greater Sydney Commission based on the contents of this Report.

BACKGROUND

In January 2016, the Greater Sydney Commission Act 2015 came into effect. This new legislation required that Sydney be divided into districts and that draft Metropolitan and district plans be prepared.

On 22 October 2017, the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) released Our Greater Sydney 2056: A metropolis of three cities (also known as ‘the draft Greater Sydney Region Plan’) and 5 draft revised District plans. The draft Greater Sydney Region Plan (Region Plan) replaced A Plan for Growing Sydney that was previously exhibited in 2014 by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).

Five revised draft District plans replace the first draft District plans prepared by the GSC, released for public consultation in November 2016. The Central District Plan that included Inner West Council local government area has been renamed draft Eastern City District Plan (District Plan).

The Regional Plan and five revised draft District Plans have been prepared and released for public comments concurrently with the Government’s Future Transport 2056 and State Infrastructure Strategy. These are documents prepared by the GSC for consultation and ultimately for the NSW Government’s consideration.

Councils are required to submit their updated LEPs to be consistent with the Regional and District Plan within three years of the finalisation of these plans.

This Report considers a number of responses to various issues concerning both the draft Region Plan and District Plan.

Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan

The overall purpose of the Region Plan is to integrate land use, transport and infrastructure planning across the Greater Sydney region up to 2056. It is estimated that by that time Greater Sydney will have:

· 8 million residents;

· an additional 725,000 dwellings; and

· an extra 817,000 jobs.

The vision of the Region Plan is to transform the Greater Sydney into a metropolis of 3 cities:

· the Western Parkland City;

· the Central River City; and

· the Eastern Harbour City. (within which the IWC is located)

An Executive Summary of the Region Plan can be found at ATTACHMENT 1. The complete document is available on the GSC’s web site at: https://www.greater.sydney/draft-greater-sydney-region-plan

Region Plan has 10 Directions supported by 38 Objectives:

Direction 1: A city supported by infrastructure

ü Objective 1: Infrastructure supports the three cities

ü Objective 2: Infrastructure aligns with forecast growth – growth infrastructure compact

ü Objective 3: Infrastructure adapts to meet future needs

ü Objective 4: Infrastructure use is optimised

Direction 2: A collaborative city

ü Objective 5: Benefits of growth realised by collaboration of governments, community and business

Direction 3: A city for people

ü Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs.

ü Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected/

ü Objective 8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods

ü Objective 9: Greater Sydney celebrated the arts and supports creative industries and innovation.

Direction 4: Housing the city

ü Objective 10: Greater housing supply

ü Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

Direction 5: A city of great places

ü Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

ü Objective 13: Environmental heritage is conserved and enhanced

Direction 6: A well connected city

ü Objective 14: A metropolis of three cities – integrated land use and transport created walkable and 30-minute cities

ü Objective 15: The Eastern GPOP and Western Economic Corridors are better connected and more competitive

ü Objective 16: Freight and logistics network is competitive and efficient

ü Objective 17: Regional transport is integrated with land use

Direction 7: Jobs and skills for the city

ü Objective 18: Harbour CBD is stronger and more competitive

ü Objective 19: Greater Parramatta is stronger and better connected

ü Objective 20: Western Sydney Airport and Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis are economic catalysts for Western Parkland City

ü Objective 21: Internationally competitive health, education, research and innovation precincts

ü Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

ü Objective 23: Industrial and urban services land is planned, protected and managed

ü Objective 24: Economic sectors are targeted for success

Direction 8: A city in its landscape

ü Objective 25: The coast and waterways are protected and healthier

ü Objective 26: A cool and green parkland city in the South Creek corridor

ü Objective 27: Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhanced

ü Objective 28: Scenic and cultural landscapes are protected

ü Objective 29: Environmental, social and economic values in rural areas are maintained and enhanced

ü Objective 30: Urban tree canopy cover is increased

ü Objective 31: Public open space is accessible, protected and enhanced

ü Objective 32: The Green Grid links parks, open spaces, bushland and walking and cycling paths

Direction 9: An efficient city

ü Objective 33: A low-carbon city contributes to net-zero emissions by 2050 and mitigates climate change

ü Objective 34: Energy and water flows are captured, used and re-used

ü Objective 35: More waste is re-used and recycled to support the development of a circular economy

Direction 10: A resilient city

ü Objective 36: People and places adapt to climate change and future shocks and stresses.

ü Objective 37: Exposure to natural and urban hazards is reduced

ü Objective 38: Heatwaves and extreme heat are managed

An additional chapter on Implementation contains 2 more objectives:

ü Objective 39: A collaborative approach to city planning

ü Objective 40: Plans refined by monitoring and reporting

The area of Greater Sydney is divided into five districts. The Inner West Council area is located within the Eastern City District.

The Region Plan informs district and local environmental plans and the assessment of planning proposals. The 10 Directions, listed above for the Region Plan, are replicated as the same 10 Directions in a set of five subordinate, district plans.

Whilst it is recognised that the Draft Region Plan is a high level strategic document that considers all of Sydney, it is noteworthy that the Inner West is largely overlooked. Only the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor is mentioned substantially. Other urban corridors and centres within the Inner West are not mentioned to a substantial degree, although these centres are subject to residential growth pressures.

Draft Eastern City District Plan

The District Plan is a 20-year plan to manage growth to achieve the 40-year vision for Greater Sydney set out in the Region Plan.

An executive summary of the District Plan can be found at ATTACHMENT 2. The complete document is available on the GSC’s web site at: https://www.greater.sydney/draft-eastern-city-district-plan

District Plans are the first step in the implementation of the Region Plan. A District Plan is delivered to inform local environmental plans and the assessment of planning proposals as well as Council’s strategic plans and policies (Figure 1). The transitional arrangements for planning proposals already lodged seeking a Gateway Determination or yet to be exhibited are outlined in the Information Note 6 published by the GSC on its web site. All planning proposals must be assessed for consistency with the revised draft District Plans at any stage of the assessment.

Figure 1: Relationships of regional, district and local plans

(Source: Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan, Oct 2017)

In response to the 10 Directions there are 20 Planning Priorities:

E1 A city supported by infrastructure

E2 Working through collaboration

E3 Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

E4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

E5 Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs and services

E6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

E7 Growing a stronger and more competitive Harbour CBD

E8 Growing and investing in health and education precincts and the Innovation Corridor

E9 Growing international trade gateways

E10 Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

E11 Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

E12 Protecting industrial and urban services land

E13 Supporting growth of targeted industry sectors

E14 Protecting and improving the health and enjoyment of Sydney Harbour and the District’s waterways

E15 Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

E16 Protecting and enhancing scenic and cultural landscapes

E17 Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

E18 Delivering high quality open space

E19 Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently

E20 Adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change

The Region and District Plans are well aligned with many paragraphs being replicated in both plans. For ease of reference the consideration section below follows the structure of the Eastern City District Plan, following the 20 planning priorities and providing comments under the relevant Chapters as follows:

· Infrastructure and collaboration - Chapter 2 (priorities E1-E2)

· Liveability - Chapter 3 (E3 – E6)

· Productivity - Chapter 4 (E7 – E13)

· Sustainability - Chapter 5 (E13-E20)

CONSIDERATION

General Strategic Planning Comments

The Region Plan advocates a future Sydney consisting of three cities, Eastern Harbour, Central and Western Parkland. The strategy discusses city centres around the Sydney CBD, Greater Parramatta – Olympic Park (GPOP) and the future Western Sydney Airport. It largely omits reference to the Inner West and the issues and opportunities afforded to greater Sydney from the IWC LGA.

The District Plan is more detailed and aligns with the Region Plan, it mentions the centres along the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor and a brief mention of on-street transit along Parramatta Road.

The comments below provide 44 detailed responses to the 20 Planning Priorities identified in the Plans. However there are a number of over-arching high-level strategic land use planning issues that stand out:

1. The Parramatta Road corridor and its centres are not identified as areas for urban growth which is inconsistent with the position of the State and planning activities currently underway. This corridor and its centres should be included in the Plans (refer to response 15 below);

2. The centres along the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor have been identified as areas for high density residential housing with little consideration of their suitability in relation to loss of industrial land and aircraft noise. This is a particular issue around Sydenham Station where the area is well-utilised industrial land with thousands of jobs and is highly affected by aircraft noise being 1km from the end of the main runway. The appropriate balance between development and maintenance of industrial land must be found (refer Planning Priorities 9 and 12, and response 32, below);

3. The Plans for future Sydney continue to misalign land use planning and transport. The continued growth of inner-urban motorways will only increase congestion in the long term and lead to reduced liveability. The Plans contain little commitment to improved public and active transport and where they are shown they do not necessarily align with travel patterns or land use. The Plans raise the concept of a 30-minute city, however it is unclear how that would be achieved (refer responses 28 and 29, below).

4. Innovative approaches are encouraged for providing affordable housing, new retail or business centres, open space or recreational facilities. However, there is a limit to how much innovation can make up for the lack of Government investment and delivery of affordable housing, public spaces, social and green infrastructure and services; and

5. The Plans discuss affordable housing as an issue but offer little commitment to implementation of measures that will address the issue. The Plans discuss increasing housing supply as an action however this will not address the issue of provision of affordable housing for the least well-off in the community.

As with the previous draft Plans, Council’s submission will recommend that the final Plans include more details, targets and clear metrics on all key elements related to justification for increased urban density, funding for public infrastructure and ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

Government initiatives for the increase of housing supply and increased density in established areas should consider benchmarking to evaluate the liveability performance of areas identified for increased residential and employment densities. There also needs to be an open source data platform that enables people to monitor compliance with the benchmarks to ensure full transparency and accountability is successfully achieved.

As a suggestion, a glossary in the Plan is needed to define key terms, e.g. green infrastructure, Blue and Green Grid, place-based approach.

Comments on the Planning Priorities in the Plans

Each chapter/section of the Plans is reviewed in the following section along with recommended responses to each planning priority.

Infrastructure and Collaboration

Planning Priority E1 promotes planning for the three cities supported by infrastructure. It suggests that ‘new public transport infrastructure, such as taxis and ride share will help connect residents to their nearest strategic or metropolitan city centre within 30 minutes’.

Taxis and rideshare (such as Uber) are distinct modes of public transport that cannot completely answer community needs for accessible and efficient mass transit. The Plans advocate for a 30 minute City however they continue to misalign land use planning and transport networks. Whilst the three cities concept is supported, travel between and within each needs to be carefully considered at both the regional and local levels. Further comments on the transport network are included under Planning Priority E10.

Planning Priority E2 is a call for consensus between all levels of government.

A fundamental feature of a good planning system is the movement towards cooperation and consensus and away from schemes that are only regulatory and impose ‘upper hand’ State controls. Although local governments do not necessarily agree with all State-level policies, it is important, where possible, to work together with the GSC and Department to achieve the best outcomes for the inner west.

1 RESPONSE: Council supports planning decisions reached through genuine collaboration, meaningful public consultation and reaching consensus between different tiers of government.

In addition to Priority Growth Areas and the Priority Precinct program, previously established by the State government, the Region and District plans introduce planning in ‘Collaboration Areas’ across metropolitan Sydney. As a non-statutory initiative, Collaboration Areas are intended to deal with the transformative urban growth delivery that is enabled by State Government Plans which are legally binding under Section 117 Ministerial Directions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The GSC has identified the following areas within the Inner West Council as Collaboration Areas for priority delivery or land where collaborative processes would be implemented:

· Camperdown-Ultimo Health and Education Precinct (led by the GSC)

· Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor (led by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment); and

· Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS) (initially developed by Urban Growth NSW, now will be a collaboration of Council’s implementing the Strategy, supported by the GSC).

GSC recommends that delivery of Collaboration Areas is supported by a Special Infrastructure Contribution or similar satisfactory arrangement.

Region or District Plans do not provide a value capture methodology as recommended by Infrastructure Australia (Australian Infrastructure Plan, Feb 2016) and supported by Council in its previous submission to the first draft District Plan in 2016. Infrastructure Australia identified that existing funding options for infrastructure are unable to provide sufficient funding to meet future infrastructure needs. In this regard, the previous version of the District Plan made reference to the potential for value capture to fund infrastructure demands.

2 RESPONSE: Council recommends that a value capture mechanism from the Australian Infrastructure Plan, Priorities and reforms for our nation’s future, (Feb 2016) be adopted and applied via the District Plan for the major renewal precincts and corridors to provide adequate funding for housing, environment, recreation, green and other infrastructure and public services in the District.

The Region Plan states that ‘the Commission recognises that development needs to support the funding of infrastructure at an appropriate level, but should not be unreasonably burdened to the extent that development becomes unviable’. The Commission’s Infrastructure Delivery Committee is developing a series of new policy initiatives to better align forecast growth with infrastructure. One of these projects is a ‘growth infrastructure compact’ which would assess the nature, level and timing of infrastructure required for an area in light of its forecast housing and employment growth, including analysis of growth scenarios.

Despite the fact that increased density and infill development in Council’s established neighbourhoods will increase the need for infrastructure and services, the Region Plan recommends that the Eastern City District should ‘operate within appropriate fiscal limits calls for getting the most out of existing infrastructure assets. Achieving better utilisation of existing assets increases infrastructure capacity to better support communities and has the potential to minimise or avoid the need to fund additional infrastructure’.

There is a limit to how much more can be serviced by the existing infrastructure assets, where any further growth without capital State/Commonwealth investment into the new infrastructure will not achieve Region and District Plan objectives to create great places and support growing communities. It is therefore essential that infrastructure requirements are considered and funding mechanisms agreed during the planning for urban growth.

3 RESPONSE: Final Region and District Plans should provide more operational details on proposed delivery mechanisms such as the ‘growth infrastructure compact’ and the role of local government on the sequencing of further growth, to ensure that growth is supported by necessary infrastructure.

Liveability

Council has worked as part of a broader Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) initiative to develop livability benchmarks for central and southern Sydney with independent specialist input (SGS Economics & Planning). These benchmarks have been provided to the GSC as part of a separate SSROC submission to the previous version of the District Plan. These benchmarks include specific metrics for affordable housing, education, health, community services, open space and place making.

The proposed Metrics to measure the success of Planning Priorities E3 & E4 is an ‘annual survey of community sentiment’. It is not clear how this survey will inform progress towards planning delivery of these priorities.

Liveability should also acknowledge the need for green infrastructure to provide ecosystems services to support health and well-being, therefore Planning Priority E6 must include “respecting and enhancing the District’s natural, cultural and built heritage”

4 RESPONSE: Council recommends that the final District Plan includes benchmarking based on the SSROC study to evaluate the liveability performance of areas identified for increased residential and employment densities.

Council supports the District Plan promotion of ‘walkable neighbourhoods that would encourage people of all ages and abilities to walk or cycle for leisure, transport or exercise’. What is missing from these priorities is the provision of integrated, efficient and affordable mass public transport that would replace existing car-oriented, privately-owned and profit-driven development in Sydney Region. This is discussed further under priority E10, below.

5 RESPONSE: Region and District Plans should include a provision for mass public transport that is reliable, efficient, and integrated with land use plans as one of the Liveability Planning Priorities.

Planning Priority E3 will provide services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs.

The District Plan notes that projections for 2036 indicate a 10% growth in children under 4 years by 2036 in IWC, and a 41% increase in school aged children across the District. Out of the 42,850 forecast growth in the District’s school students, 12-13% will be in the IWC area, with corresponding implications for the provision of early education and child care (including co-location with schools/ offices).

The District Plan states that School Infrastructure NSW, a new specialist unit within the NSW Department of Education, will work with state agencies and groups to develop schools as community hubs, however local government is not specifically referenced in this proposed work.

6 RESPONSE: Greater Sydney should take steps to become a Child Friendly City following the UNICEF guidelines, and Councils should be funded by State government to develop child friendly city strategies. Councils need to be cited as a major stakeholder in the proposal by School Infrastructure NSW to develop schools as community hubs.

The District Plan does not provide details of any future school infrastructure nor Government commitments to accommodate the growth in the number of students in the Inner West. The Plan rather advocates for ‘innovative approaches to the use of land and floor space, including co-location with compatible uses such as primary schools and office buildings’.

The District Plan confirms that ‘growth increases demand on existing services and infrastructure, particularly sport and recreation facilities that are, in some cases, at or nearing capacity’. GSC concludes that due to the high land values the authorities cannot provide any opportunities for additional open space and recreational facilities as ‘resources and funding are limited’. Instead it recommends an increase in shared use of public schools facilities, church halls or temporary closed streets.

Clarification is required regarding how community hubs will be provided in dense areas such as the Inner West where vacant land and open space is extremely limited. If existing open space in schools is compromised to build extra classrooms and childcare, this will further constrain the outdoor play opportunities of Inner West children.

The District Plan refers to ‘increased shared and more flexible use of underutilised facilities such as schools, sports facilities’ as a means of addressing future demands. However there is little evidence of underutilisation of Inner West facilities; the existence of resources that can meet community demand; or the preparedness of local schools to allow for shared use.

7 RESPONSE: School Infrastructure NSW should undertake an audit of all public and private school facilities in order to assess the feasibility of schools being developed as community hubs in the Inner West.

The NSW Government changes to the planning system and a recent adoption of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 prescribed non-government schools as public authorities to enable them to carry out development using the same assessment process as previously used by public schools. Following this new classification of schools, the facilities of non-government schools should also be considered for adapting and sharing for sports, arts, cultural or recreational community use when they are not otherwise required.

8 RESPONSE: The draft District Plan should be amended to consider the use of non-government schools to assist in the delivery of social infrastructure alongside public schools. Council to contact non-government schools in the area to explore opportunities for shared public use of their facilities.

The Plan notes a large proportional increase in older people in the Eastern City District by 2036. Inner West, Sydney and Bayside Councils have the largest projected volume of the 65-84 age group and 85 and over age group in District.

The Plan states that more compact housing, medium density and walkable neighbourhoods will assist this demographic stay in their own community. It notes that ageing in community/place and universal design will increase accessibility in homes and public places.

Some of the key considerations in planning for an ageing community, not referenced in the District Plan, include provision of safe, affordable, efficient and accessible transport; maintaining financial security and independence; challenging ageism; loneliness; and addressing the needs of people from diverse backgrounds. The NSW Ageing Strategy also highlights the importance of older people being active participants in planning the services designed to meet their needs.

9 RESPONSE: That the State government works with local Councils, the private sector and community organisations to make Greater Sydney an Age-Friendly City according to World Health Organisations Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide and associated checklist.

The District Plan acknowledges that level of accessibility and homes of universal design are of the highest priority for over 37,000 people with a disability in the Eastern City District.

The quoted figure of 37,000 people with a disability in the district appears to be underestimated when they are approximately 36,000 people with a disability in the Inner West Council area. It is likely the Plan’s stated figure relates only to ABS data on severe core activity restriction and would not appear to include the vast majority of people living with a disability whose situation is not captured by the survey tools. As a result important needs, particularly in relation to housing, will be severely underrepresented and therefore not addressed in the District Plan.

The National Dialogue on Universal Housing Design of 2009 set agreed progressive targets for government and industry to reach from 2010 to 2020. These included a target for 100% of newly constructed dwelling to be built to the ‘Liveable Housing’ standard. Despite the unprecedented level of construction and development in Sydney during this time, the target has been ignored.

Reliance on renewal through facilities reaching the end of their safe and practicable lifespan is an insufficient approach to address the backlog of access needs.

10 RESPONSE: The Plan should recognise the important need to plan for access to all forms of land use and development and give consideration to the adoption of universal housing design targets for all new housing.

Planning Priority E4 will foster healthy creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities.

The high incidence of adults who are overweight or obese in the Eastern City District (36%) is noted. The Plan recognises that connectivity and access to open space is essential to facilitate physical activity, however it does not reference the fact that areas such as the Inner West are already underrepresented in terms of open space provision. This lack of open space combined with increasing population density will see increasing demands being exerted on the limited open space already provided. The plan makes minimal reference to the lack of public open space in the District, particularly in the Inner West; the impact on liveability; and how the state government can assist to address this.

11 RESPONSE: The Plan should recognise the increasing demands on open space within the inner west and that mechanisms to provide for additional and improved open spaces are essential. The State government should commit funding to address the current state of neglect of Callan Park to ensure it is planned and managed to help meet increasing community demands and environmental needs.

The District Plan supports diverse population ‘from differing socioeconomic circumstances and a range of social, cultural, ethnic and linguistic background’. It recognises the Inner West Council declaration of a Refugee Welcome Zones. The Plan also supports Aboriginal self-determination, economic participation and contemporary cultural expression.

According to the 2016 Census data, the proportion of people from Italy, Greece, Nepal and Vietnam is greater in the Inner West than for the Greater Sydney area. Inner West Council has given expression to its celebration of diversity and social justice through the establishment of the Refugee Welcome Centre in Lilyfield. Likewise socioeconomic variations are pronounced within the Inner West, including very high socioeconomic areas such as Birchgrove located adjacent to social housing in Balmain.

Implementation of the Plan will require awareness and respect for the local Aboriginal communities; recognition of their specific needs; and a commitment to engage with appropriate Aboriginal representatives.

12 RESPONSE: Council commends the GSC for supporting the IWC Refugee Welcome zone and Aboriginal self-determination, economic participation and contemporary cultural expression. The District Plans should recognise that the District’s Aboriginal people comprises many Aboriginal communities.

GSC recommends actions to ‘facilitate opportunities for creative and artistic expression and participation, wherever feasible with a minimum regulatory burden’, including creative arts and appropriate development of the night-time economy.

Culture and creativity is one of the key strategic priorities for the Inner West community (Inner West Community Vision Statement 2016; Marrickville Council Community Strategy 2023, KRA 2; Cultural Action Plan 2016 – 2020) and it is seen as strongly linked to local liveability, vibrancy and economy. The Inner West's creative and cultural identity and liveability is forged through its proximity to authentic cultural production and creative spaces, including live music venues, cultural businesses and artist run initiatives. It is estimated Creative Producers contribute $8.3 billion for the NSW economy through culture and heritage visitation (Sydney Culture Network, 2017).

Council strongly supports its creative communities, and has identified a range of potential programs and commitments to be delivered in alignment with its Community Strategic Plan. These include:

· Supporting live music venues with funding and resources; and

· Exploring adaptive reuse options for cultural spaces.

During 2018 - 19 Council will be developing a range of actions related to promoting night-time economy, cultural spaces and live music in consultation with the local creative community.

The GSC’s reference to creative and cultural experiences and infrastructure is limited and general. High streets are ripe for repurposing with creative activity and spaces only where affordability and suitability allows. This can be evidenced by a number of new artist studios and local creative enterprises on Parramatta Road in Stanmore, Leichhardt, Annandale and Petersham (catalogued in Council's Off Broadway Report, 2016) making use of affordable conditions. Artists and makers in these shopfronts and warehouses will potentially be displaced through the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy.

It is important to note that councils are not always the drivers of planning proposals and developer need to be required to also consider community cultural needs within their developments. The State Government should play a key role in the provision of cultural spaces and enable private sector to contribute to the cultural infrastructure facilities such as the Carrington Road precinct (cultural production) and Victoria Road/Sydenham precinct (live music).

Council's community consultation reveals a growing stream of artists leaving Sydney due the lack of affordable housing as well as a lack of affordable artistic studios and spaces to work.

If Sydney is to retain its status as a thriving global city with a strong offering of cultural experiences, it must find means to retain and support its artists. This is a significant issue in the Inner West, with the largest population of artists and makers, who are being forced further out of the city, or leaving Sydney altogether. The costs of re-establishing studio spaces are significant and feedback from artists reveals that if these Inner City spaces are lost, they face a major struggle to find alternative spaces or studios to continue their artistic endeavours.

Action 13 should be expanded to also refer to the protection and nurturing of hubs of cultural production, such as Carrington Road. To foster the creative arts and culture there is a need for integrated and innovative actions, including provision of affordable housing for artists and creative practitioners who can be financially vulnerable. It is for this reason that Council is considering the possibility of allocating a portion of land value uplift, generated by the re-zoning of industrial land, to the creation of affordable artists’ studios and spaces.

13 RESPONSE: Council recommends the final plan includes mechanisms to fund public art and place making programs.

The revised draft Plan still omits a reference to the recreational, cultural, historic and environmental significance of Callan Park, despite Council highlighting this in its previous submission on the 2016 first draft District Plan.

At over 60 hectares, Callan Park is one of the largest and most significant open spaces with natural and built heritage in the Inner West LGA. The park should be identified as part of the District Cultural Infrastructure which facilitates some major cultural events and houses art and cultural facilities such as NSW Writers Centre and studio and exhibition space for the Sydney College of the Art. As our most significant parkland it supports the Iron Cove Greenway, Cooks River Open Space Corridor and the Bay Run, one of the most popular harbourside tracks in Sydney.

14 RESPONSE: Callan Park must be identified in the District Plan as an important public open space with cultural and natural heritage in its landscape and buildings.

The District Plan notes that the Office of Sport will be developing a participation strategy and facility plan for the district.

15 RESPONSE: The NSW Office of Sport should commit to a delivery timeframe for the Sport and Recreation Participation Strategy and Facility Plan to assist Councils to reference these in their local sport and recreation plans and strategies.

Planning Priority E5

The District Plan sets the housing target for the Eastern City District at 157,500 homes up to 2036. The District Plan identifies five housing market demand areas that influence the housing market in the Eastern City District. The Inner West Council LGA is split between Inner West – Marrickville and Inner West-Burwood (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Eastern City District housing market areas

(Source: Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan, Oct 2017)

Five-year housing targets for the Eastern City District are the same as published in the draft Central District Plan in November 2016. The IWC housing target is 5,900 dwellings until 2021 and includes all types of housing – traditional detached and attached houses, apartments, seniors housing, granny flats and aged care. In the 5 year period from July 2012 – June 2017, the Inner West local government area delivered 3,575 additional dwellings, with a large proportion of these being multi-unit dwellings.

Housing targets for the five year period 2016-2021 and for the 20 year period are as follows:

District/LGA	0-5 years housing supply target: 2016-2021	20 years strategic housing target: 2016-2036
Eastern City	46,550	157,500
Inner West LGA	5,900	TBD

The methodology used for the housing targets in District Plans has not been provided. The housing growth of 5,900 additional dwellings is not chronologically aligned with the targets and capacity analysis prepared by the Urban Growth NSW and the DPE in the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation and Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor strategies. Proposed growth projections in these two strategies are:

PRUTS	Additional dwellings by 2023	Additional dwellings by 2050
Taverners Hill	451	1350
Leichhardt	880	1100
Camperdown	389	700
	Total: 1,720	Total: 3150
SYD to BANKS	Additional dwellings by 2026
Sydenham	500
Marrickville	6000
Dulwich Hill	2000
	Total: 8,500

Whilst Council appreciates the need for specific targets on housing supply, the way in which the targets are presented by State agencies is confusing. The targets have been subject to multiple revisions between various overlapping metropolitan, regional and urban renewal precinct forecasts.

The areas of future housing supply are identified on the map below (Figure 3). However, the Parramatta Road corridor is not identified as an ‘urban renewal area’. It is not clear if the forecast dwelling completions of 5,900 in the IWC (2016 – 2021) includes the number of additional dwellings in Taverners Hill, Leichhardt, Camperdown and Kings Bay (smaller area within the IWC). Except in a passing mention, the District Plan does not reveal any further details on the revitalisation of Parramatta Road.

16 RESPONSE: Council requests that the draft District Plan is amended to:

a) include Parramatta Road urban renewal corridor on the map as a linear set of mixed use strategic centres;

b) ensure the Inner West housing targets include Parramatta urban renewal corridor; and

c) make transparent the method used for the housing targets

Figure 3: Eastern City District Future housing supply

(Source: Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan, Oct 2017)

The Commission will work with each council to develop 6-10 year housing targets. To deliver the 20-year housing target for the District, councils should, in local housing strategies, investigate and recognise opportunities for long-term housing supply associated with city-shaping transport projects identified in Future Transport 2056, State government strategy.

The District Plan requires councils to develop local housing strategies (LHS) which:

· make provision to meet the 5 and 10-year (when agreed) housing targets;

· identify capacity to contribute to a rolling program to deliver the 20-year district strategic supply;

· inform the Affordable Rental Housing target for development precincts; and

· co-ordinate the planning and delivery of local and State Infrastructure.

The Region Plan (Objective 10) requires Councils to prepare local or District housing strategies that respond to housing targets set by the Commission. The preparation of a LHS will support the new development standards in the consolidated Inner West LEP.

The GSC’s five year targets set out in Region and District Plans are generally consistent with known housing approvals and construction activity and they largely reflect delivery potential under current planning controls. In that case, there is no immediate urgency to deliver comprehensive Council’s housing policy that would potentially contradict Council’s main planning instruments such as new integrated LEP and DCP. The planning proposal process of site by site rezoning set up by the DPE is undermining long-term land use planning in Inner West Council. Delivery of a housing strategy in isolation from the integrated new LEP would further weaken the integrity of planning at local level but if it is aligned with the integrated LEP preparation process it will provide a strong strategic planning base for the assessment of future housing proposals.

17 RESPONSE: Council’s housing strategy will be prepared as part of the consolidated Inner West LEP and DCP project.

The GSC proposes locational criteria for urban renewal that is aligned with government investment in transport infrastructure such as Sydney Metro City or WestConnex. The GSC does not propose any new public school, open space or sporting facilities. The recommendation is for ‘enhancements to existing infrastructure and upgrade to existing facilities’.

18 RESPONSE: Any new urban growth in the IWC LGA is supported with properly planned physical, environmental and social infrastructure funded by the State Government including public schools, health centres, community centres, open space, parks, libraries, active transport networks and green infrastructure etc.

The GSC recommends that across Greater Sydney affordable rental housing targets should be in the range of 5-10% of new residential floor space. The Commission will work with the DPE to develop the mechanisms required for delivery of the proposed affordable rental housing target.

GSC identified that further opportunities to improve housing affordability are ‘compact housing’ (smaller apartments and smaller land lots) and new owner-developer apartment models known as ‘built to rent’.

One of the assertions made by the State government and mentioned in the Region and District Plans is that construction of new housing supply will substantially contribute to solving the affordable housing crisis. This strategy is linked to reliance upon the private sector to address the under-supply of affordable housing.

Whilst there has been a significant increase in housing completions in Sydney in recent years, it is clear that the market is not providing affordable housing for the vast majority of very low, low and moderate income households. The market is also failing to replace the existing stock of affordable housing that is lost through gentrification and redevelopment.

Focused interventions are needed to address existing affordability problems affecting low income households. This is corroborated by the Inner West Council’s research which strongly indicates that virtually no new housing constructed in the future will be affordable to any low income households without strong government intervention through the planning system including a policy to share land value uplift, particularly in larger brownfield and redevelopment sites as well as major State urban renewal projects.

The GSC’s proposed development feasibility testing, assumptions and exemptions should be shared with the public and incorporate business tested risk return margins that meet community expectations. Exemptions to targets should involve independent adjudication.

While the District Plan incorporates housing targets by LGA, there is no comparable plan relating to affordable housing targets. The Plan states that Greater Sydney requires an estimated 4,000–8,000 additional affordable dwellings per annum to meet the needs of lower income groups, however there is no attempt to break this estimated figure down by LGAs and to incorporate these figures in an overall plan.

A significant impediment to creating such a plan is the imprecision surrounding the measures proposed for increasing affordable housing supply e.g. State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, Affordable Rental Housing Targets for very low to low-income households, compact housing to support moderate-income households or new owner-developer apartment models.

The SEPP provides for floor space bonuses on top of the existing maximum for property developers of town houses, villas and apartment buildings. In exchange only a portion of affordable units will be secured for 10 years and managed by a registered Community Housing Provider. After 10 years the apartments will be returned to an open market rental or sale price.

This is contrary to the Council’s Policy on affordable housing, adopted in March 2017, which requires 15% of all total gross floor area to be transferred to Council as affordable rental housing units for any residential development that has 20 or more dwellings or with a gross floor area larger than 1,700m². Council’s Policy also supports an affordable housing target of 30% of affordable units on State owned land. Affordable Rental Housing Targets in the Region and District Plan should not be limited to defined precincts but should apply to all land subject to re-zoning for residential or mixed use purposes across Greater Sydney.

19 RESPONSE: Council requests that higher targets be adopted for the Affordable Rental Housing Target with a 15% target on private land and up to 30% target on public land to help address the high levels of housing stress among very low to moderate income households in the Inner West Council LGA. These targets should apply to the whole of a development’s GFA (residential and commercial) not just the additional residential GFA. The provision of affordable rental housing on State and Commonwealth government owned land should be made mandatory for government agencies disposing of or developing surplus land for residential or mixed-use projects in order to complement affordable housing targets applying to private developments.

Having submitted evidence for the high need for affordable housing in the IWC LGA, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) informed Council in April 2017 that the analysis of affordable housing need in the LGA was considered comprehensive and sufficient to support an application for inclusion in State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) – SEPP 70. At the end of April 2017, Council formally applied for inclusion in SEPP 70. Council is still waiting for a response to its application.

Inclusion in SEPP 70 would substantially enhance Council’s ability to implement its affordable housing target of 15% in major private developments. It would enable schemes that make affordable housing contributions requirements legally binding and not only an optional matter to be negotiated with developers through voluntary planning agreements.

This is particularly significant since the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor and Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy include land which contains existing affordable rental housing. The redevelopment of these precincts will result in the loss of existing affordable rental housing and the replacement of that housing with more expensive units. It is important that council has suitable delivery mechanisms to enable affordable housing to be supplied to meet Council and GSC targets.

20 RESPONSE: Council requests that IWC’s application for inclusion in SEPP70 be agreed as a matter of urgency so that affordable housing can be delivered in the LGA to meet Council and GSC targets.

Planning Priority E6 will create and renew great places and local centres, and respect the District’s heritage.

The District Plan recommends that to create great public spaces and to increase opportunities to expand and connect these places with people, rooftops and podiums of high-rise buildings should be used in innovative ways.

While Council supports the use of multifunctional spaces and rooftops for private recreation wherever appropriate, these spaces cannot replace the need for town squares, civic spaces and other forms of public realm where people can gather, meet or celebrate.

21 RESPONSE: Council supports the appropriate use of rooftop spaces for private recreations, however notes it is challenging to provide large public spaces at ground level in the public realm in already developed centres.

The Plan recognises the significance of the street environment as part of the public realm, and the necessity to prioritise walking, safe cycling and social interaction.

The subsequent need to allocate space between footpaths, cycleways, public transport and vehicles needs to therefore be reflected in the major state infrastructure developments which affect the Inner West.

22 RESPONSE: Major state infrastructure projects such as the M4-M5 Link (Stage 3) should ensure the street environment in areas such as Victoria Road, Rozelle are redesigned to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists (to coincide with the redirection of surface traffic into the M4-M5 Link tunnel).

The District Plan classifies centres into metropolitan city, strategic and local with 400m or 800m walking catchments (see Figure 4). It is unclear within the District Plan as to what the thresholds are and the methodology used to classify these centres.

Balmain, Rozelle, Leichhardt and Marrickville Metro are recognised as local centres with 400m walking catchment. Newtown, Summer Hill and Ashfield are local centres with 800m walking catchment.

There are no Strategic Centres in the IWC LGA identified on the map. At the District Level these are Rhodes, Burwood, Bondi Junction, Green Square-Mascot, Randwick, Eastgarden-Maroubra Junction and Kogarah.

Figure 4: Eastern City District Centres

(Source: Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan, Oct 2017)

Marrickville, has the city's highest density and diversity of live music venues in the Eastern City District afforded by factory-style buildings, warehouses and community assets, such as Bowling Clubs, that exist in industrial areas.

The highest concentration of venues is in or around the Victoria Road precinct. These venues include the Factory Theatre, Red Rattler and Marrickville Bowling Club. This precinct is currently being rezoned by the NSW Department of Planning, with residential development proposed within close proximity of venues, which will significantly impact their ability to continue functioning as live music venues. The area's performing arts and creative producers are thus at risk of displacement, impacting local identity and economy.

In addition, increasing traffic congestion and lack of integrated mass transport solutions impact adversely on further growth of the night-time economy, jobs creation and vibrant night life. State policies and regulatory reforms relating to night time trading need to be harmonised across the State to achieve an agreed approach to late night trading that will support economic growth.

23 RESPONSE: Council supports the Plans promotion of a vibrant and safe night-time economy that will support a diverse range of small businesses, cultural and other public events that would meet social and economic needs of our communities.

Managing heritage conservation and accommodating development intensification in the Inner West council area is challenging. Councils are required to achieve a balance between protecting heritage spaces and buildings, whilst meeting State derived housing targets.

The District Plan does not recognise that important heritage elements of our local identity in areas such as the State-owned Callan Park are not being conserved and need urgent state government investment.

Industrial rezonings and a squeeze on affordable cultural spaces affect not only local liveability and economy, but also local heritage and identity. Made in Marrickville: Enterprise and cluster dynamics at the creative industries-manufacturing interface (Gibson et al, 2017) presents evidence for concern over the local and metropolitan impacts of displacing local industries.

Action 17 should be expanded to include the use of green infrastructure and urban ecology principles to plan and design great places. The outcome of such an approach will be Sydney’s worldwide reputation as best global city – liveable, resilient, productive, sustainable beautiful and idiosyncratic.

24 RESPONSE: That the significance of Aboriginal sites, natural landscapes and heritage buildings within Callan Park and other heritage-rich areas in the Inner West, such as along Iron Cove and Cooks River foreshores and the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay, requires documentation, conservation, management and interpretation through a significant and ongoing financial commitment by the state government.

Productivity

The Region Plan proposes ongoing investment and further business growth of the Eastern City District to enable continued global growth of the Eastern Economic Corridor (from Macquarie Park to Sydney Airport, including Chatswood, St Leonards, Harbour CBD, North Sydney, Green Square and Port Botany). It also includes the important industrial areas of Artarmon, South Sydney and Marrickville.

In addition, agglomerating the assets on the western edge of the Harbour CBD such as the universities, tertiary teaching hospital, international innovation companies and fast-growing start-ups will support an Innovation Corridor. The Innovation Corridor extends from the Bays Precinct, to high – tech and start-up hubs in Pyrmont and Ultimo, to the health and education institutions of the University of Technology Sydney, Notre Dame University, the University of Sydney, the RPA Hospital and the Australian Technology Park (See Figure 5).

Figure 5: Innovation Corridor, Harbour CBD

(Source: Revised Draft Eastern City District Plan, Oct 2017)

The Eastern City District has the highest proportion of knowledge and professional services workers in Greater Sydney. The existing industrial, urban services land and employment land in the District is predicted to transition from manufacturing to professional, high-tech, scientific, creative industries and ancillary distribution and warehousing to further boost productivity.

Planning Priority E7 is to manage residential growth so it does not compromise the Eastern Economic Corridor.

The Draft District Plan identifies thriving night-time economies in Newtown, Marrickville and Balmain, whilst Camperdown - Ultimo is part of the innovation, health and education precinct. The Region and District Plans recognise the importance of creative industries and the night time economy to both productivity and liveability. These will foster healthy, creative culturally rich and socially connected communities, and grow targeted sectors including artistic and cultural activities and the night time economy, with a minimum regulatory burden.

25 RESPONSE: Council supports proposed policies and actions that would provide a wide range of cultural, entertainment, arts and leisure activities for a diverse and vibrant night-time economy.

It should be noted that the creative sector often requires lower rent and good access to public transport. As proposed, this coastal harbour corridor will be occupied by companies with a high cost of business which will limit the opportunity for small start-up creative businesses.

The Bays Precinct’s land use and infrastructure plan should be developed in consultation with the Council, who’s priorities for the precinct are:

· World class public transport access;

· Reopening of the Glebe Island Bridge to pedestrians and cyclists;

· Public access to foreshore;

· Up to 30% of all new housing to be not for profit; and

· New recreational facilities including an indoor sports centre and multiple sporting grounds.

The plan should also assess how the Precinct’s redevelopment and revival can be used to proactively lever economic benefits in Balmain, Rozelle and other industry precincts.

The Actions Table on page 65 of the District Plan does not include any action to deliver and implement a Place Strategy and Infrastructure Plan for the Glebe Island and White Bay Power Station Precinct. The Actions refer only to Camperdown-Ultimo and Randwick health and education precincts within the Innovation Corridor.

26 RESPONSE:

(a) The District Plan should note Council’s priorities for the Bays Precinct related to public and active transport, public access to the foreshore, public recreation facilities, affordable housing and the provision of low cost spaces for creative and start-up businesses and activities.

(b) The Actions Table on page 65 of the District Plan should include an additional action to ‘Deliver and implement a Place Strategy and Infrastructure Plan for the Glebe Island and White Bay Power Station part of the Innovation Corridor’

(c) The District Plan should include an additional action to evaluate and support the role of the Inner West Light Rail/GreenWay corridor in supporting Sydney’s knowledge-based and creative industries sector.

In examining the potential for additional growth of tourism and visitors economy in the Eastern City District, Council requests that the long term suitability of the White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal be examined, particularly in relation to its impact on residents of Balmain and Pyrmont and the likelihood that increasing proportions of cruise ships will be too tall to obtain clear passage under the Harbour Bridge.

Presently, there are very limited public transport options for passengers on arriving ships. Connectivity between White Bay Cruise Terminal and the Balmain & Rozelle retail precincts and other key visitors zones and hubs should be improved to tap into the cruise ship economy.

27 RESPONSE: Council requests that the long-term suitability of the existing White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal is examined considering adverse impact on nearby residential neighbourhoods and the natural environment.

Planning Priority E8 delivers on internationally competitive health, education, research and innovation precincts and their corresponding strategy.

The District Plan has identified Camperdown - Ultimo health and education precinct as an area that requires proximity to affordable and diverse housing options that can be multipurpose, and a range of cultural, entertainment and leisure activities with a strong night-time economy. The District Plan supports planning controls in the innovation corridor that would allow a sufficient supply of workspaces for knowledge-intensive jobs and provide flexibility for the needs of start-ups and enterprises with innovative business models.

The GSC has also initiated the concept of Collaboration Areas that focus particularly on centres of economic productivity. Collaboration areas are nominated places where the GSC will facilitate the establishment of governance arrangements and support the coordination of activities across agencies and governments to deliver future growth. The Region and District Plans identify Camperdown-Ultimo as one of the priority Collaboration Areas and only City of Sydney as a relevant local government.

The status of the Camperdown industrial lands within the former Leichhardt and Marrickville local government areas bordering Parramatta Road was not mapped as an integral part of Camperdown-Ultimo health and education precinct. Under the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRUTS), Nov 2016 this land has been identified for future employment uses. It would be appropriate to amend the map in the District Plan with the one in the PRUTS. In order to assess planning proposals in a consistent and transparent way Council is obliged to refer to the PRUTS land use and density controls that prevail over current LEPs and DCPs provisions.

28 RESPONSE: Camperdown-Ultimo Collaboration Area mapped in the revised draft Eastern City District Plan should be amended to cover the same land identified as Camperdown Precinct in Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy, (Urban Growth NSW, Nov 2016). Inner West Council should be included in the collaboration process, delivery and implementation of a Place Strategy for the Camperdown-Ultimo health and education precinct as one of the key stakeholders, alongside City of Sydney.

Planning Priority E9 objective is to protect and grow international trade gateways, Port Botany and Sydney Airport.

A key issue requiring consideration is the impact of aircraft noise in areas close to the airport runways. The Sydenham to Bankstown corridor promotes higher density residential development in precincts that are highly affected by aircraft noise. It is questionable whether these are appropriate areas for increased residential development as they will always be highly affected by noise and are not suitable residential areas. Furthermore, much of the industrial land in this precinct currently supports airport activities, and the loss of that industrial land will affect the ability of the airport to operate effectively into the future. Also see comments below under planning priority E12.

Planning Priority E10 aims to deliver a 30-minute city, the result of integrated land use and transport planning. The concept has been proposed in the Region Plan and Future Transport 2056. It means that ‘more people will have public transport access to their closest metropolitan or strategic centre within 30 minutes’. Initiatives to support integration in line with population and economic growth include:

· High-capacity mass transit links to better link people to centres and services;

· Capacity and journey-time improvements on existing transport corridors serving the Harbour CBD and surrounding centres;

· Improved transport links between strategic centres, and as feeders into mass transit;

· Improvements to strategic road network and key intersections to improve traffic flows through the District and access to strategic centres; and

· City-to-city links to the Central River City, in particular Greater Parramatta, and ultimately to the Western Parkland City, the Western Sydney Airport, Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis, Greater Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown-Macarthur.

The District Plan promotes cycling and walking. Transport for NSW is establishing the Principal Bicycle Network which will provide high quality, high priority cycling routes across Greater Sydney. This is in addition to coordinating the Sydney Regional Bike Network within a 10-kilometre radius of the Harbour CBD. The bike network will be integrated with the Greater Sydney Green Grid.

According to the District Plan, cycling improvements underway or being planned within the IWC LGA include:

· Inner Sydney Regional Bicycle Network;

· Inner West links; and

· Inner West missing links between Iron Cove Bridge and Cooks River.

The concept of 30-minute cities where people can live within a 30-minute commute time of their work is also strongly supported. These concepts support Council’s arguments against WestConnex which was justified by the State government as a necessary infrastructure that would connect Western Sydney to the jobs-rich Eastern City District. Instead of a car plan, Sydney needs planning for a fully integrated and comprehensive public mass transport system.

Council’s submission on Future Transport 2056 requests that the Inner Sydney Regional Bike Plan specifically be included in the 0-10 year timeframe.

Pleasant and safe environments for walking and cycling should include green infrastructure to support human thermal comfort, such as urban tree canopy with a vegetated understorey and permeable surfaces.

Council has consistently disagreed with the State’s continued pursuit of urban motorways in the inner west. Council will continue to support a limited number of location specific road improvements, but requests that these be supported by significant public transport improvements.

Further, council considers that it is essential to ensure that public transport and land use planning should be fully integrated. In support of this view council commissioned the Parramatta Road Public Transport Opportunities Study which identified a centre-running Guided Electric Transit system/GETs (an emerging transport technology) as a preferred solution to transport provision along the Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Corridor.

This transport solution has been proposed as a contemporary transport solution for point-to-point travel along the corridor which:

· releases kerbside space for parking;

· runs on sustainable power;

· is capable of capacity similar to light rail;

· may have its capacity incrementally increased in response to gradually increasing population densities;

· can be introduced, quicker, more economically and less disruptively to the local environment than light rail; and

· would be viewed by developers and new residents as a state-of-the-art transport mode, and as such would greatly assist in catalysing urban transformation.

Consideration should be given to the introduction of this technology, as an integrated response to land use planning.

29 RESPONSE: Region and District Plans should adopt principles for integrated land use and transport planning based on reduced private car dependency for all travel.

30 RESPONSE: Council oppose the expansion of Inner city motorways and supports State government investment into sustainable mass transit and improved walking and cycling network in the Inner West area of the Eastern City District.

Planning Priority E11 aims at growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres. The draft District Plan sets out a hierarchy for centres:

· Metropolitan City centre: Harbour CBD

· Strategic centres: Bondi Junction, Burwood, Eastgarden-Maroubra Junction, Green Square-Mascot, Randwick and Rhodes; and

· Local centres.

In the IWC area all existing and future planned centres are classified as local. However, the District Plan recommends the focus of public transport investments that seek to deliver the 30-minute city objective for strategic centres only.

The revitalisation of Parramatta Road corridor is not recognised as a strategic linear centre (the high street) where improvements in public transport/mass transit are needed.

31 RESPONSE: The District Plan should identify Parramatta Road Corridor as a set of linear mixed use strategic centres in the Eastern City District where public transport investment will seek to support the 30-minute city objective.

Council supports jobs growth and community access to goods and services as a core objective for all centres. Delivery of housing should not constrain the ongoing operation of commercial and retail activities.

Planning Priority E11 should also include actions regarding attracting and supporting jobs in:

· the green economy - by supporting growth of the growing green infrastructure market and associated environmental sector (building resilience and mitigating urban heat island and supporting urban ecology); and

· supporting informal creative economies e.g. local/household food production, collaborative and sharing economies

32 RESPONSE: The District Plan should acknowledge and promote the jobs growth opportunity provided by the green economy.

Planning Priority E12 is to provide for planned, protected and managed industrial and urban services land.

The District Plan recognises that these lands serve local communities and businesses, but also support businesses in the Harbour CBD and Greater Sydney’s two existing international trade gateways of Port Botany and Sydney Airport. Demand for this land will increase commensurate with population growth.

Amongst the ten largest industrial and urban services precincts within the Eastern City District are Bays Precinct and Marrickville. The Bays Precinct has 68ha of developed land (out of 71ha total), providing for 964 jobs. Marrickville has 66ha of developed land (out of 67ha total) with 5,615 jobs.

Industrial and urban services land in the Eastern City District are highly constrained due to the development of residential dwellings and large-scale retail. Impetus for this rezoning includes recently published State strategies such as Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor plan and Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy, which have earmarked industrial tracts for rezoning.

Industrial zoned land is of considerable value to the Inner West, housing a concentration of highly specialised cultural producers, such as fine artists, crafts-people and cultural manufacturers, serving the creative needs of Greater Sydney. The Inner West area has the highest concentration for people working in the creative and cultural industries in NSW (9.4%, 2011 Census), with particular specialisations in the visual arts and music.

Despite their enormous value to local identity and economy, the Inner West Council area currently has significant industrial sites being considered for rezoning or recently approved by the State government. If rezonings that see a loss of industrial lands and cultural spaces in this area are to proceed, the last significant hubs of Inner City cultural production will be lost. As Made in Marrickville: Enterprise and cluster dynamics at the creative industries-manufacturing interface (Gibson et al, 2017) reveals that the cultural infrastructure provided by industrial lands in Carrington Road are critical for Sydney to remain a competitive and liveable global city (Made in Marrickville, p. 9). Cultural producers and key city events of Greater Sydney depend on services in the Inner City ring.

The current necessity to retain industrial lands is driven by:

· burgeoning demand of displaced cultural producers;

· several significant new developments and potential rezonings;

· a significant surge in Greater Sydney/ the Inner West's cultural manufacturing sector, led in part by local demand for locally produced, niche goods and services;

· recognition of the value of the local creative economy; and

· proximity to the CBD (client relationships, transport, delivery times).

Comparing to the previous drafts of Metropolitan and District Plans, GSC has strengthened its policy on the protection of industrial land, from a precautionary approach to now prohibition of any conversion of that land to residential or mixed land use.

33 RESPONSE: The Plans recommendation to protect industrial lands from encroachment of residential, mixed or any other land uses use that would hinder their role and function is firmly supported. Council recommends that the GSC strongly advocates this position to the Department of Planning to retain and protect the current stock of industrial, employment and urban services land in the Inner West, including the unique cultural production hubs, which play a significant role in nurturing and growing Sydney’s knowledge-based and creative industries economy.

Planning Priority E13 supports growth of targeted industry sectors. The Region Plan outlines strategies to support industry sectors such as industry skills, investment attraction, export growth, industry showcasing and opportunities through government procurement and partnerships.

The sectors of focus for the Eastern City District with most potential to be globally competitive and create jobs are:

· International education;

· Financial and professional services;

· Star-ups and digital innovation;

· Regional headquarters of multinationals;

· Tourism;

· Infrastructure and smart cities; and

· Creative industries.

As Australia’s prime international gateway, Greater Sydney welcomes 30 million visitors per annum. The Eastern City District contributed over $8.6 billion to the economy in 2015-16.

The District Plan recognises Marrickville and surrounding neighbourhoods as emerging areas and a focal point of creative industries, small-scale cultural and arts experiences. These assets have the potential to add a new and unique face to the tourist economy.

The Inner West is known for its cultural, entertainment, arts and leisure activities on offer. While Council’s provides support to cultural activities and the eclectic offerings of the local businesses, current regulations are prohibiting growth in this area. The final District Plan should recognise the need and support the alignment of regulations, policy and planning controls where appropriate to make it easier for business to support small-scale cultural spaces uses and activities.

34 RESPONSE: Council strongly supports the recommendation for further progress of innovative and creative industries, local artists and visitor economy. The final District Plan should identify the Inner West Light Rail/GreenWay corridor as a focal point of creative industries in the District.

Sustainability

Improving sustainability will involve: incorporating natural landscape features into the urban environment; protecting and managing natural systems; cooling the urban environment; innovative and efficient use and re-use of energy, water and waste resources; and building the resilience of communities to natural and urban hazards, shocks and stresses.

The District Plan identifies four connected elements of green infrastructure: waterways; urban bushland; urban tree canopy and green ground cover; parks and open spaces.

Regarding recommended metrics to assess progress of Planning Priorities to achieve Direction 8 (A city in its landscape), there should be metrics for:

1. increasing native vegetation (including mid-storey shrubs and ground cover / grasses);

2. improving waterway health; and

3. water conservation and waste (in precincts with low carbon initiatives).

Urban tree canopy alone cannot improve ecological health or meet the liveability and biodiversity objectives.

In general, the term ‘sustainability’ should be replaced with more specific term ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD) as defined in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 and referred to in numerous other legislation, e.g. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Coastal Management Act 2016, etc.

Planning Priority E14 delivers protected and healthier coast and waterways.

The Eastern Districts’ waterways play an integral role in creating a sense of place, providing recreational opportunities, supporting economic and cultural activities. They support threatened ecological communities and accommodate the disposal of stormwater and wastewater. Many of the District’s creeks have been channelised and hard-edged with concrete – such as Hawthorne and Dobroyd canals.

The delivery of the Green Grid is one of the projects that will enhance community access to the coast and waterways within the District. It should be noted that access to waterways is not necessarily appropriate in ecologically sensitive riparian and waterway environments and should be managed carefully and protected in those cases.

Action 57 of the Planning Priority E14 should be reworded to “Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive coastal areas, riparian zones and waterways”.

Action 58 of the Planning Priority E14 should be reviewed. Enhancing access to waterways will impact on waterways, for example formal access such as concrete pathways disturbs the limited vegetation in the riparian zone.

IWC is a member of the Parramatta River Catchment Group and the Cooks River Alliance, both of which seek to make these waterways swimmable again by 2025. These groups are an alliance of local and State Government agencies and the community. The approaches taken by these groups should be included in the relevant actions to deliver Planning Priority E14.

35 RESPONSE: Council strongly supports protection and improvement of environmental health of the District’s coast and waterways, especially the acknowledgment of the cumulative impact of development. Parramatta River Catchment Group, GreenWay Program and the Cooks River Alliance should be involved in the delivery of proposed actions.

Planning Priority E15 seeks to protect biodiversity, urban bushland and enhance remnant vegetation.

Bushland areas and remnant vegetation support the District’s significant biodiversity, provide habitat, help cool the environment and support cleaner waterways and air. The District Plan supports protecting biodiversity and investing in connected bushland corridors to give the District’s wildlife the greatest chance of survival. This approach complements the delivery of the Greater Sydney Green Grid.

It is recommended to include an additional item in Action 61 which is: ‘Ensure that opportunities to increase biodiversity are incorporated into the planning and design of neighbourhoods and urban renewal and transformation projects’.

36 RESPONSE: The District Plan to include as an action to protect and enhance bushland and biodiversity a provision for not only increasing the urban tree canopy but also a diversity of vegetation structures including ground cover.

Planning Priority E16 delivers on the protection of scenic and cultural landscapes which encourage an appreciation of the natural environment, protect heritage and culture and create economic opportunities, particularly for recreation and tourism. The District Plan identifies opportunities to enhance views of Sydney Harbour with renewal projects such as The Bays Precinct.

37 RESPONSE: Council supports the protection of views of scenic and cultural landscapes from the public realm but only where substantial vegetation is not removed.

Planning Priority E17 delivers on increasing urban canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections.

Tree-lined streets, urban bushland and tree cover on private land form the urban tree canopy. The District Plan identifies Marrickville and Ashfield as suburbs that have low tree canopy cover. The Plan recommends that sustaining boulevards of trees along the District’s busiest roads including Marrickville, Parramatta and Canterbury Road is an important step towards improving amenity and air quality and cooling the Eastern City District.

The canopy cover over the Inner West local government area, based on 2014 figures, is 18.3 percent. Council’s officers consider that ideally, the urban forest canopy cover in an inner suburban area should be at least 30%.

The Marrickville Urban Forest Strategy (2011) and the Marrickville Community Strategic Plan aim to increase urban forest canopy although they do not set a canopy target. However, as a guide, the City of Sydney aims to achieve a LGA wide canopy target of 27% by 2050 (up from 15.5%) and City of Melbourne aims to achieve 40% by 2040 (up from 22%).

It is considered that higher density residential, retail and commercial planning proposals where nearly all the existing buildings and infrastructure will be removed to accommodate wide scale redevelopment must achieve a minimum of 30 percent urban forest canopy. Nevertheless Council’s policy to provide increased urban forest canopy for any major redevelopment is not currently a legally binding requirement when assessing development applications.

38 RESPONSE: The District Plan should give statutory weight to:

a) Council’s Urban Forest Strategy and request for a forest canopy of at least 30% of the LGA;

b) Strategy for a Water Sensitive Community 2012-2021 and decrease both the effective impervious area and water consumption on 2010 levels; and

c) Marrickville LEP 2011 Natural Resources – Biodiversity map that identifies a native wildlife corridor along the Cooks River and requests that any landscaping plans must be native vegetation local to the Sydney basin (minimum 90%).

The Greater Sydney Green Grid is a vision of network of high quality green spaces that connects communities to the natural landscape. State regional and district parklands and reserves form a principle element of the Greater Sydney Green Grid for both biodiversity and recreation purposes. It promotes a healthier urban environment, improve community access to recreation and exercise, encourages social interaction, supports walking and cycling connections and improves resilience.

The Grid will be delivered incrementally over decades as opportunities arise and detailed plans for connections are refined. The list of related Projects for the District includes:

1. Iron Cove Greenway and the Hawthorne Canal. Creating a sequence of connected open spaces that follow the Hawthorne Canal and the Light Rail Corridor from Leichhardt North to Dulwich Hill light rail stations; and

2. The Cooks River Open Space Corridor. Links to nearby centres including Strathfield, Sydney Olympic Park, Campsie, Canterbury, Dulwich Hill, Marrickville and Wolli Creek. This is a priority green grid project for both the Eastern City and South Districts.

The District Plan lists other important projects to deliver Sydney’s Green Grid in the Eastern City District including the Bankstown to Sydenham Open Space corridor. This project will transform surplus rail easement land and wide local streets that run parallel to the rail line into an active walking, cycling, open space and cultural corridor which will connect regionally significant open space areas, such as the Cooks River Foreshores, Wolli Creek Regional Park, the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay and Salt Pan Creek open space corridor.

The Inner West Council is project managing the delivery of the GreenWay Missing Links Project which will “unlock” an additional 3Ha of new publicly accessible open space along the Inner West Light Rail/GreenWay Corridor. Specific mention should be made in the District Plan of the proposal by DPE to design and implement the proposed “GreenWay South-West”, to be routed along the Bankstown to Sydenham corridor.

Planning for the GreenWay South West needs to recognise that it should be designed and delivered as a multipurpose corridor, which provides a range of benefits, including improved active travel, urban greening/biodiversity, providing wildlife habitat, well designed open space, opportunities to enhance cultural and community connections etc.

Council encourages the GSC to facilitate a whole-of-government approach to the design and implementation of multi-purpose green corridors such as GreenWay South West and Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay. This should involve key stakeholders such as City of Canterbury Bankstown, Inner West Council, Government Architects NSW, GSC, TfNSW, Sydney Metro and other relevant agencies/groups.

The Metropolitan Greenspace Program, administered by the Greater Sydney Commission, provides funding of individual grants to councils. However, the draft District Plan recommends that local governments lead delivery of this regional infrastructure and adopt funding mechanisms such as development and land use controls, agreements for dual use of open space and recreational facilities, direct investment in open space, Section 94 Contributions and Voluntary Planning Agreements.

The State Government must commit to funding towards the key regional infrastructure, such as the Greater Sydney Green Grid, that Council will not be able to fund due to past caps on S94 contributions (combined with caps on rates). Council considers that any acquisitions should be compensated by the State Government, given this is required largely due to the rapid population growth initiated by Regional and District Plans. If a State Significant Contribution (SIC) is introduced for other infrastructure in urban renewal areas, concern is raised that the funding for state and regional infrastructure will be locked in first and Council will be limited in its ability to increase S94 contributions to adequately cover all the remaining local infrastructure.

39 RESPONSE: Council supports the GSC’s commitment to improve regional open space and deliver Greater Sydney’s Green Grid through the administration and management of the Metropolitan Greenspace Program and other funding sources. Council recommends that the Greater Sydney Green Grid, including the native vegetation of the GreenWay, is financially supported by the State Government and Special Infrastructure Contributions as it is regionally significant infrastructure.

Planning Priority E18 aims to deliver high quality open space.

The draft District Plan explains that there will be relatively few opportunities to increase the quantity of public open space, and therefore greater emphasis will be needed on improving the quality and distribution of open space, including sporting facilities. It is recommended that councils make better use of existing sportsgrounds, converting existing open space into sports fields, and partnering with schools to share spaces outside school hours. The Plan recommends rooftop gardens, shared use of open spaces currently inaccessible due to private use and small/pocket parks as opportunities to create greater recreational capacity across the District.

The Plan concludes that the future of some larger spaces used for activities, such as golf, may be uncertain due to declining membership and attendance figures. The Commission recommends that any land or facilities in public ownership should be retained as open space and transition to shared open space and facilities, including for organised sports.

The Plan concludes that active open space is in high demand across the District but that there are limited opportunities to provide additional capacity alongside growth.

Land for open space should be identified upfront and funding mechanisms identified in District Plans. In order to deliver the Green Grid there may be requirements for government to acquire land for open space, to incorporate large parkland areas rather than primarily linear parks. Linear parks promoted in the Sydenham to Bankstown Strategy on the rail transit surplus land along the metro line cannot replace the need for proper parks that are more than connectors. Linear parks along cycling and walking tracks are great community assets but the Inner West area also need larger open space for group sports or community outdoor functions.

Action 66 should also include the following: ‘Require large private urban development projects to incorporate open space areas such as rooftop gardens and indoor sport/recreation facilities within the development area where nearby public open space is limited’.

40 RESPONSE: The final Plans must ensure that adequate and appropriately located public parks and recreational facilities are provided to meet the needs of the existing population and natural environment the additional demand resulting from the proposed urban growth.

Planning Priority E19 deals with reduced carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently.

The draft District Plan confirms that demand for energy and water and the generation of waste will increase with the significant growth planned for the Eastern City District. The Plan also recommends building on existing public transport connections with electric vehicle transport hubs, shared autonomous vehicles and other innovative transport technologies that will further reduce greenhouse emissions, and reduce levels of noise and air pollution.

It is acknowledged in the Plan that the Eastern City District is leading the way in sustainability and energy efficiency innovation by mainstreaming highly energy-efficient buildings, encouraging building renovations that ensure low-carbon and high efficiency performance, enabling green energy, water and waste infrastructure solutions, and replacing old and inefficient existing infrastructure and technologies.

It is considered that combining waste management with energy and water usage under one planning priority undermines the importance of waste and resource recovery. There are no details on future management of waste or resource recovery main concern which is transport of waste. The District Plan refers to the creation of a circular economy to improve efficiency and waste management but does not provide any mechanism or initiative on how to drive innovation, investment or opportunities in this area.

An increase of dwellings and people in the City Eastern District will lead to a huge increase in waste generation. The Region and District Plans should specify a mandatory best practice approach for Council-State agencies in relation to waste management in major urban development initiatives.

Additional waste management infrastructure will be required to meet the challenge, as per the Draft NSW Infrastructure Strategy 2017. For example, an expected 26% increase in waste generated in the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor will mean additional transport and collection costs, as well as additional truck movements with the associated environmental and social impacts.

Existing infrastructure is almost at capacity already, with landfills closing and new facilities such as Veolia’s Woodlawn waste processing facility opened in 2017 with 100% utilisation. An adequate network of waste transfer and treatment facilities must be developed if NSW is to achieve resource recovery targets and maximum diversion from landfill. A greater proportion of income from the NSW S88 Waste Levy (charged on each tonne of waste disposed in landfill) could be utilised on strategic planning for waste infrastructure at state level. This would be over and above what is diverted through the NSW Waste Less, Recycle More initiative in contestable and non-contestable grants.

IWC strongly supports alternatives to landfill for disposal, as well as reduction in waste generation rates, but these aims generate the need for alternatives for which Sydney already lacks options. Possibilities for consideration include precinct based reuse, recycling and waste-to-energy facilities (with adequate environmental controls such as those imposed on facilities in European and Japanese cities).

41 RESPONSE: The Regional and District Plans should include more details such as actions, targets and milestones for waste and resource recovery including land/zoning for local infrastructure, transport and waste facilities and transfer stations.

The District Plan should be amended to explicitly state targets set out in the NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-21, NSW Environmental Planning Authority (EPA), Dec 2014. The Regional and District Plan should also refer to draft (or final version) NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Strategy 2017-2021 prepared by the EPA which is a gap analysis identifying lack of infrastructure for waste in NSW. This document confirms that current landfills are reaching capacity and the effect of the need to transport the waste outside the District.

42 RESPONSE: The final Plans should consider a separate planning priority for waste and resource recovery. The Plans should explicitly support targets set in the NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-21.

The management of waste and resources must be integral to the planning and design of the sites. Best practice waste management happens at the source. Space needs to be allocated within urban renewal areas that will allow alignment with the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021. That is space for a small facility within each precinct that would allow for reusing or processing items.

Higher priority needs to be given to driving innovation and best practice resource recovery, for example this could be for onsite composting (as is currently being demonstrated at Barangaroo) and/or where reusable items and materials can be sorted, repaired and reused through partnerships with social enterprises and reuse centres. Both opportunities would not only help to mitigate waste impacts on and outside of the precincts but create valuable local employment opportunities and community skills.

43 RESPONSE: The final Plans should identify new locations for waste recycling and management which is a State government responsibility and beyond Council’s controls.

Planning Priority E20 is to address adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change.

The District’s climate and natural landscape can create natural hazards such as heatwaves, flooding, storms and coastal inundation and erosion.

In relation to urban hazards, the draft District Plan also confirms that transport movements along major roads and rail corridors generate noise and are a source of air pollution. The Plan concludes that the design of new buildings and public open space can play a significant role in reducing exposure to noise and air pollution along busy road and rail corridors. There are no recommendations on the measures to reduce urban hazards such as air pollution and noise when new motorways are being built through mature neighbourhoods.

44 RESPONSE: The GSC should recommend measures to reduce noise, water, air and soil pollution caused by new Inner West motorways.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Comments on the Regional and District Plans were received from all relevant staff/areas of Council including Strategic Planning, Economic Development, Community Services, Environmental Services, Parks and Reserves and Resource Recovery.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public consultation on the draft Regional and District Plans is being undertaken by the Greater Sydney Commission with the exhibition closing on 15 December 2017.

CONCLUSION

This Report recommends that Council make a submission on the draft Regional and Eastern City District Plans seeking amendments that address key issues including funding for social and physical infrastructure to facilitate further urban growth, evident problems with Sydney housing supply and demand; and environmental outcomes.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Summary Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan
2.⇩	Summary Revised Draft Estern City District Plan

Council Meeting

12 December 2017

Item No: C1217 Item 2

Subject: Review of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards and State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007

Prepared By: Peter Wotton - Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator

Authorised By: David Birds - Group Manager Strategic Planning

SUMMARY

The Department of Planning and Environment has released an Explanation of Intended Effect concerning a proposal to repeal State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 and make a number of other consequential changes to the planning controls relating to land to which environmental planning instruments not made under the Standard Instrument LEP apply.

The repeal of two operational SEPPs package is on exhibition until 22 December 2017.

Council officers have prepared a submission for Council’s consideration. The submission raises a number of issues with the proposed amendments. That submission is ATTACHED as ATTACHMENT 1.

For the reasons detailed in the submission, particularly the key differences between the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1) and the provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards of the Standard Instrument LEP, the submission recommends that SEPP 1 NOT be repealed.

SEPP 1 currently applies to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site. That land is identified as a “Deferred matter” under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013. As part of the consultation the Department invited Councils to nominate clauses in the LEPs applying to deferred areas that they do want to be capable of being varied.

Notwithstanding that the submission prepared by Council officers recommends that State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards not be repealed, should the Department decide to do so, it is recommended that Council request that the maximum floor space ratio development standard of 3.9:1 in Clause (4) (a), and the maximum height development standards of “12.5 metres above the existing road level” specified in subclause (4)(f), the “reduced level of 52.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(g), and the “reduced level of 82.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(f), (4)(g) and (4)(h) respectively in Schedule 1 of LLEP 2000 relating to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site be listed as development standards not be capable of being varied.

Also as detailed in the submission, the repeal of State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 and the incorporation of Standard Instrument LEP provisions relating to Subdivision (Clause 2.6), Demolition (Clause 2.7), Temporary use of land (Clause 2.8) and Conversion of fire alarms (Clause 5.8) into SEPPs and local environmental planning instruments that contain land to which the provisions of the Standard Instrument LEP do not apply, would require an extensive number of LEPs as well as SEPPs to be amended and does little to simplify and modernize the planning system. Such extensive amendments are difficult to justify especially considering that the proposed changes are to address an issue which relates to approximately 0.2% of land in the State.

The submission recommends an alternate approach which is contended a better and simpler approach to ensure that those provisions of the Standard Instrument LEP apply uniformly within each local government area.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The report be received and noted; and

2. Council endorse the draft submission in ATTACHMENT 1 to this report to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Planning and Environment is reviewing State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) “to simplify and modernise the planning system by removing duplicated, redundant and outdated planning controls”.

The Department proposes to improve and simplify NSW development standards by repealing SEPP No. 1 - Development Standards and SEPP (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 (MCP SEPP). The planning provisions contained in those two SEPPs are proposed to be incorporated into local planning controls.

The Department contends that the above SEPPs have limited application, only applying to lands which have been deferred from the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan and a small number of other State Environmental Planning Policies.

The Executive Summary in the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect (October 2017) for the repeal of the two operational SEPPs states (in part) as follows:

“The proposed repeal of SEPP 1 and the MCP SEPP is possible because the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan (Standard Instrument LEP) contains equivalent provisions to those in SEPP 1 and the MCP SEPP which currently apply to more than 99.8 per cent of the lands of NSW.

It is proposed to amend the older LEPs (Attachment B) that continue to apply to the remaining 0.2 per cent of the State by inserting into them the equivalent Standard Instrument LEP’s clauses for:

· Exceptions to development standards (Clause 4.6)

· Subdivision (Clause 2.6)

· Demolition (Clause 2.7)

· Temporary use of land (Clause 2.8)

· Conversion of fire alarms (Clause 5.8)

It is also proposed to amend a small number of SEPPs (Attachments C and E) that were made before the introduction of the Standard Instrument LEP by inserting into them the five equivalent provisions. SEPP 1 and the MCP SEPP can then be repealed.

Highlights of the proposals in this document include:

· The elimination of the parallel operation of two development standards variation mechanisms in favour of a single mechanism, Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards from the Standard Instrument LEP. Clause 4.6 will then apply everywhere in NSW.

· Reducing the volume of State policy and providing uniformity in the relevant planning provisions applying across NSW.

· Completing the transfer of development consent requirements for demolition, subdivision, temporary use of land and fire alarm systems from State Instruments into local instruments and making these provisions uniform within each local government area.

The proposed repeal of SEPP 1 and the MCP SEPP will reduce the number of State Environmental Planning Policies by transferring the provisions to the most appropriate level in the planning system making them easier for use for all stakeholders. This is consistent with the Government’s objective for a clear, contemporary and transparent planning system.”

The repeal of two operational SEPPs package is on exhibition until 22 December 2017.

DISCUSSION

a. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1)

SEPP 1 has been in place since 1980. It is aimed at providing flexibility in the application of certain planning controls by allowing councils to approve a development application that does not comply with a development standard where it can be shown that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary.

Environmental planning instruments made under the Standard Instrument LEP include Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) does not apply to land to which those instruments apply.

SEPP 1 only applies to small proportions of Local Government Areas where lands were deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP and to eight older SEPPs.

The only land deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP in the Inner West LGA is the land referred to as the “Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site”.

The land to which the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site relates is identified as a “Deferred matter” on the Land Application Map of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP 2013). Clause 1.3 (1A) of LLEP 2013 states:

“(1A) Despite subclause (1), this Plan does not apply to the land identified as “Deferred matter” on the Land Application Map.”

The local environmental plan applying to land referred to as the “Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site” is Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LLEP 2000). That instrument is not an environmental planning instrument made under the Standard Instrument LEP.

The planning controls applying to land referred to as the “Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site” are contained in LLEP 2000. Schedule 1 Additional uses and controls for certain land of LLEP 2000 specifies the following controls for the site:

“Part 3 Amended controls on specific sites

Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site

(1) For the purposes of this Part:

building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level at any point to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

mixed use development means a building or place comprising 2 or more different land uses that are permissible in the Business Zone.

the site means the site comprising all of the following land:

(a) 138–152 Victoria Road, Rozelle (being Lot 1, DP 528045),

(b) 154–156 Victoria Road, Rozelle (being Lot 1, DP 109047),

(c) 697 Darling Street, Rozelle (being Lot 104, DP 733658),

(d) 1–7 Waterloo Street, Rozelle (being Lots 101 and 102, DP 629133, Lots 37 and 38, DP 421 and Lot 36, DP 190866),

as shown edged heavy black and lettered “SSP” on the map marked “Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No 16)” deposited in the office of Leichhardt Municipal Council.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Plan (except clause 19 (6) and (7) or a provision of this Part), consent may be granted for mixed use development on the site, but only if, in the opinion of the Council, the following objectives are met:

(a) the development integrates suitable business, office, residential, retail and other uses so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling,

(b) the development contributes to the vibrancy and prosperity of the Rozelle Commercial Centre with an active street life while maintaining residential amenity,

(c) the development is well designed with articulated height and massing providing a high quality transition to the existing streetscape,

(d) the traffic generated by the development does not have an unacceptable impact on pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic on Darling Street, Waterloo Street and Victoria Road, Rozelle,

(e) any residential development at street level has a frontage to Waterloo Street, Rozelle and, when viewed from the street, has the appearance of no more than three storeys.

(3) A consent under subclause (2) must not be granted if the application for the development does not apply to the whole of the site.

(4) A consent under subclause (2) must not be granted if the development will result in any of the following:

(a) the floor space ratio for the site exceeds 3.9:1,

(b) the floor space ratio for all shops on the site exceeds 1.3:1,

(c) the floor space ratio for all commercial premises on the site exceeds 0.2:1,

(d) the floor space ratio for all clubs on the site exceeds 0.5:1,

(e) the floor space ratio for all residential development on the site exceeds 1.9:1,

(f) in relation to a building on the site that is less than 10 metres from Waterloo Street, Rozelle—the building height exceeds 12.5 metres above the existing road level,

(g) in relation to a building on the site that is less than 36 metres from Darling Street, Rozelle—the building height exceeds a reduced level of 52.0 metres relative to the Australian Height Datum or exceeds two storeys,

(h) a building height on the site exceeds a reduced level of 82.0 metres relative to the Australian Height Datum or exceeds twelve storeys.”

The planning controls for the site came into effect on 29 August 2008 when Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No. 16) was gazetted.

The Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect (October 2017) states that Clause 4.6 (6) will be amended to suit the older LEPs that apply to deferred areas. The Explanation of Intended Effect also notes that “Clause 4.6 (8) creates an opportunity for local councils to list the clauses in their LEP that they do not want to be capable of being varied by Clause 4.6. Councils have been invited to nominate the clauses in the LEPs applying to deferred areas that they want excluded under subclause (8).”

The development standards that apply to development on the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site are principally those contained within sub clause (4) of Schedule 1 of LLEP 2000 reproduced above. Council has an opportunity to request the Department list any development standards that the Council does not want to be capable of being varied under the Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent clause proposed to be incorporated into their instrument.

Whilst there is a philosophical argument as to whether developments on “Deferred sites” should be afforded the same degree of flexibility in the application of certain development standards to particular development as developments on non deferred sites, on balance it is generally considered reasonable to do so subject to the circumstances in each case. It should also be noted that the preclusion of the ability to vary certain development standards on deferred sites may act as a catalyst for planning proposals being lodged for such land, which if supported, would result in that land no longer being a “deferred site”.

In relation to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site it is considered that the maximum floor space ratio permitted for development on the land of 3.9:1 under subclause 4(a) above should be made a development standard that is not able to be varied. That floor space ratio is well in excess of the next highest floor space ratio that applies to land under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 of 2.15:1. It should also be noted that a FSR of 3.9:1 is also in excess of the maximum floor space ratio that currently applies to other land in the Inner West LGA of 3.0:1 and 3.7:1 respectively under Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Building height controls are important to ensure that developments respond to the desired future scale and character of the street and local area. The Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site has sensitive interfaces. In light of the above it is considered that Council should request that the maximum height development standard of “12.5 metres above the existing road level” specified in subclause (4)(f), the “reduced level of 52.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(g), and the “reduced level of 82.0 metres” for the site specified in subclause (4)(h) be made non variable development standards.

It is considered unnecessary to request that the Department list the other development standards contained in subclause (4) as being not capable of being varied under the Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent provision.

The submission prepared for Council’s consideration (ATTACHMENT 1) raises a number of issues with the approach detailed in the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect for the repeal of the two operational SEPPs, and because of the key differences between the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1) and the provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards of the Standard Instrument LEP, the submission strongly recommends that SEPP 1 NOT be repealed.

Notwithstanding that the submission recommends that State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards not be repealed for the reasons outlined in this submission, should the Department decide to do so, it is recommended that Council request that the maximum floor space ratio development standard of 3.9:1 in Clause (4) (a), and the maximum height development standards of “12.5 metres above the existing road level” specified in subclause (4)(f), the “reduced level of 52.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(g), and the “reduced level of 82.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(h) respectively in Schedule 1 of LLEP 2000 relating to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site be listed as development standards not to be capable of being varied.

b. State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 (MCP SEPP)

The background information with the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect states (in part) that:

“State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 (MCP SEPP) was made to ensure that the demolition of buildings, the subdivision of land and the conversion of fire alarm systems were matters that required development consent. The MCP SEPP makes those forms of development require consent across NSW.

The MCP SEPP also introduced State wide provisions to enable:

· the erection of temporary structures with development consent, and

· limited changes of use in certain business zones to occur without consent”

The Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect notes that “Like SEPP 1, the MCP SEPP now only applies:

· on lands that are not subject to a Standard Instrument LEP, that is deferred areas where an older LEP still applies, and

· in a smaller number of older SEPPs that do not have clauses addressing demolition, subdivision, temporary use of land and fire alarm systems.

It is proposed that the Standard Instrument LEP clauses 2.6 (Subdivision), 2.7 (Demolition) and 5.8 (Conversion of fire alarms) be inserted into all the older instruments applying to deferred areas so that there is uniformity across NSW.”

It is also proposed to include a Standard Instrument LEP clause 2.8 (Temporary use of land) in those instruments amended to match the temporary use provision in the respective LGA’s Standard Instrument LEP.

The submission prepared for Council’s consideration (ATTACHMENT 1) raises a number of issues with the approach detailed in the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect for the

repeal of State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 and the incorporation of Standard Instrument LEP Clauses 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 5.8 into SEPPs and local environmental planning instruments that contain land to which the provisions of the Standard Instrument LEP do not apply, would require an extensive number of LEPs as well as SEPPs to be amended and does little to simplify and modernize the planning. Such extensive amendments are difficult to justify especially considering that the proposed changes are to address an issue which relates to approximately 0.2% of land in the State.

The submission recommends an alternate approach which is contended a better and simpler approach to ensure that provisions relating to Subdivision (Clause 2.6), Demolition (Clause 2.7), Temporary use of land (Clause 2.8) and Conversion of fire alarms (Clause 5.8) of the Standard Instrument LEP apply uniformly within each local government area.

As stated previously the only land deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP in the Inner West LGA is the land referred to as the “Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site”.

It is one of the 43 LEPs listed in the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect that contains land deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP.

The proposed amendments in relation to the repeal of State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 would have minimal implications for the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site apart from increasing the maximum period for a temporary use on the land from 26 days (under Clause 31 of LLEP 2000) to a maximum of 106 days, the maximum period permitted for a temporary use under Clause 2.8 of Leichardt Local Environmental Plan 2013.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Council’s Development Assessment and Regulatory Services Section were consulted in relation to the development standards applying to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site under Schedule 1 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LLEP 2000) and whether Council should request the Department to list any of those development standards as not being capable of being varied under the Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent clause proposed to be incorporated into LLEP 2000.

It was decided that if SEPP 1 was to be repealed and a Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent clause incorporated into LLEP 2000, that the maximum floor space ratio development standard of 3.9:1 for the site (in Clause (4) (a)) and the maximum height development standards of “12.5 metres above the existing road level” specified in subclause (4)(f), the “reduced level of 52.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(g), and the “reduced level of 82.0 metres” specified in subclause (4)(h) respectively in Schedule 1 of LLEP 2000 relating to the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site be listed as development standards not to be capable of being varied.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil

CONCLUSION

For the reasons detailed in the submission (ATTACHMENT 1), particularly the key differences between the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and the provisions of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards of the Standard Instrument LEP it is recommended that SEPP 1 NOT be repealed.

Also as detailed in ATTACHMENT 1, the repeal of State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 and the incorporation of Standard Instrument LEP Clauses 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 5.8 into SEPPs and local environmental planning instruments that contain land to which the provisions of the Standard Instrument LEP do not apply, would require an extensive number of LEPs, as well as SEPPs, to be amended and would do little to simplify and modernize the planning system. Such extensive amendments are difficult to justify especially considering that the proposed changes are to address an issue which relates to approximately 0.2% of land in the State.

The submission recommends an alternate approach which is considered a better and simpler approach to ensure that provisions relating to Subdivision (Clause 2.6), Demolition (Clause 2.7), Temporary use of land (Clause 2.8) and Conversion of fire alarms (Clause 5.8) of the Standard Instrument LEP apply uniformly within each local government area.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Draft Submission - Department's Explanation of Intended Effect repeal of two operational SEPPs

Council Meeting

12 December 2017

Temporary IWC visual_cyanblack-long

File ref: 2663

13 December 2017

Director, Planning Frameworks

NSW Department of Planning & Environment

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir,

EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECTS –

REPEAL OF TWO OPERATIONAL SEPPS

SEPP 1 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and

SEPP (MISCELLANEOUS CONSENT PROVISIONS) 2007

The Inner West Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Explanation of Intended Effects – Repeal of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007.

The Council’s comments in relation to the Explanation of Intended Effects – Repeal of two operational SEPPs are attached to this letter.

For the reasons detailed in the submission the Council recommends that neither of the SEPPs be repealed.

The submission includes a number of suggested changes to address the issues identified, and to assist with the Government’s objective for a clear, contemporary and transparent planning system and to provide uniformity in the planning provisions applying across NSW.

Council trusts the submission assists the Department in its deliberations.

Should you have any enquiries please contact Peter Wotton, Council’s Strategic Planning Projects Coordinator, Marrickville on 9335 2260.

Yours Sincerely

David Birds

Group Manager, Strategic Planning

Marcus Rowan Trim doc:

IWC_letterhead_no-cropmarks

Temporary IWC visual_cyanblack-long

EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECTS –

REPEAL OF TWO OPERATIONAL SEPPS

SEPP 1 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and

SEPP (MISCELLANEOUS CONSENT PROVISIONS) 2007

The following are Council’s comments in relation to the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effects for the repeal of two operational SEPPs. The comments in relation to both State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and State Environmental Planning Policy (Miscellaneous Consent Provisions) 2007 have been broken down into general comments and comments relating specifically to the Inner West LGA.

The submission also includes a number of suggested changes to address the issues identified and to assist with the Government’s objective for a clear, contemporary and transparent planning system and to provide uniformity in the planning provisions applying across NSW.

Council’s comments are as follows:

a. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1)

SEPP 1 only applies to small proportions of Local Government Areas where lands were deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP and to eight older SEPPs.

Part of the proposed amendments include incorporating a Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent provision into the following State Environmental Planning Policies:

i. SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009;

ii. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004;

iii. SEPP (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989;

iv. SEPP (Penrith Lakes Scheme) 1989;

v. SEPP (State Significant Projects) 2005 (Schedule 3);

vi. SEPP (Three Ports) 2013;

vii. SEPP No. 16 — Walsh Bay; and

viii. SEPP No. 26 — City West

General Comments:

It is contended the incorporation of a Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent provision into the above SEPPs would be clumsy, cumbersome and would unnecessarily complicate those SEPPs especially considering that for all land to which a local environmental planning instrument made under the Standard Instrument LEP applies, the provisions of SEPP 1 do not apply.

The reason why the provisions of SEPP 1 do not apply to the land referred to above are contained within provisions of the Standard Instrument. The relevant provisions are Clause 1.3, Clause 1.9 and Clause 4.6 (2) of the Standard Instrument. Those clauses read as follows:

“1.3 Land to which Plan applies

This Plan applies to the land identified on the Land Application Map.

1.9 Application of SEPPs

(1) This Plan is subject to the provisions of any State environmental planning policy that prevails over this Plan as provided by section 36 of the Act.

(2) The following State environmental planning policies (or provisions) do not apply to the land to which this Plan applies:

State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

[….]

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.”

The State Environmental Planning Policies, referred to previously, that are proposed to be amended to include a Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent provision are all environmental planning instruments under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Any development standard contained within those State Environmental Planning Policies would be “a development standard imposed by ~~this or~~ any other environmental planning instrument” and as such would be a development standard to which Clause 4.6 (2) of the Standard Instrument LEP applies.

The land to which a local environmental planning instrument (The Plan), made under the Standard Instrument LEP, applies is the land identified on the Land Application Map for that area (Clause 1.3 of the Standard Instrument LEP).

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 — Development Standards does not apply to land to which The Plan applies (Clause 1.9 (2) of the Standard Instrument LEP).

Consequently the provisions of SEPP 1 do not apply to land to which the Standard Instrument LEP applies.

It should also be noted that there are some differences between SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards of the Standard Instrument LEP.

Under SEPP 1, the following criteria must be satisfied:

a. the objection must be in writing and be well founded in addressing whether compliance with the relevant development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case;

b. the consent authority must be of the opinion that granting consent is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1; and

c. concurrence from the Department of Planning has been given (or can be assumed to have been given).

Under Clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument LEP, the following criteria must be satisfied:

a. pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i), a written objection must, to Council’s satisfaction, adequately address the following issues:

i. compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (Clause 4.6(3)(a)); and

ii. there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (Clause 4.6(3)(b)); and

b. pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)), the Council must be satisfied that the development is consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standard and the objectives for development within the applicable zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out; and

c. pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(b), concurrence from the Department has been given (or can be assumed to have been given).

As detailed above, whilst there are similarities between the instruments (particularly via the need to show compliance with a standard is unreasonable or unnecessary), there are some key differences, namely:

i. The requirement for sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard; and

ii. The requirement that the development be consistent with the objectives of the applicable standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is because of those key differences it is recommended that State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards NOT be repealed.

Unlike the development standards contained within Standard Instrument LEPs, the development standards contained in older instruments generally do not contain objective(s) for that particular development standard. In such scenarios it would not be possible to determine that a Clause 4.6 objection was “consistent with the objectives of the particular standard.”

In addition where certain land was deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP it was generally because of highly complex planning issues relating to that land. In some cases the land which was deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP related to particular land where additional uses were permitted on the land under the environmental planning instrument that were not otherwise permissible under the Land Use Table for the zone that applied to the land under the instrument. In such scenarios it would be difficult to determine that a Clause 4.6 objection was “consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.”

It should also be noted that on some land where land has been deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP, the environmental planning instrument applying to the land sets objectives for development on that land, and where those objectives are inconsistent with the objectives for development within the zone under that instrument, the objectives for development on that land prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. The above scenario highlights issues with the Clause 4.6 (4) (ii) requirement that a proposed development is “consistent with the objectives …… for development within the zone”.

Whilst the repeal of SEPP 1 would “reduce the number of State Environmental Planning Policies” for the reasons detailed above, it is contended that the repeal of SEPP 1 and the incorporation of a Clause 4.6 Standard LEP equivalent provision into a number of older State Environmental Planning Policies in the manner suggested in the Department’s Explanation of Intended Effect (October 2017) would not make “them easier for use for all stakeholders.” It is also contended that such amendments would be contrary to “the Government’s objective for a clear, contemporary and transparent planning system.”

Although the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards apply to a small percentage of land in NSW, for the reasons detailed above it is considered essential that SEPP 1 not be repealed.

It is considered that rather than repealing SEPP 1, and the consequential need to make commensurate amendments to a number of State Environmental Planning Policies to incorporate a Clause 4.6 Standard LEP equivalent provision into those SEPPs, to make the planning system “easier for use for all stakeholders” it would be a lot simpler to amend State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards to clarify when the SEPP applies.

Clause 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards currently reads as follows:

“4 Application of Policy

(1) This Policy applies to the State, except as provided by this clause.

(2) This Policy does not apply to the land shown edged heavy black and shaded on the map marked “State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (Amendment No 5)” deposited in the head office of the Department of Planning and copies of which are deposited in the office of Wollongong City Council.”

To add greater clarification when the policy applies it is suggested that an additional sub-clause be added to the above clause reading as follows:

“(3) This Policy does not apply to land to which an environmental planning instrument made under the Standard Instrument LEP applies.”

On a separate note, regardless whether SEPP 1 is repealed, the definition of “existing maximum floor space” ratio under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 should be amended to delete the words “or State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards” from the definition of that term.

Comments relating specifically to the Inner West LGA

The only land deferred from the application of the Standard Instrument LEP in the Inner West LGA is the land referred to as the “Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site”.

“(1A) Despite subclause (1), this Plan does not apply to the land identified as “Deferred matter” on the Land Application Map.”

Of the eight State Environmental Planning Policies that are proposed to have a Clause 4.6 Standard Instrument LEP equivalent provision incorporated into them, only SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 and SEPP No. 26 – City West) apply to land in the Inner West LGA.

For the reasons discussed previously in the general comments section of this report that the provisions of SEPP 1 only apply to land to which an environmental planning instrument made under the Standard Instrument LEP does not apply, in the case of those State Environmental Planning Policies, the provisions of SEPP 1 would only apply to development proposed to carried out under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP or the Senior Housing SEPP, but only on the land referred to as the Balmain Leagues Club Precinct site.