65. Public Authorities - Sutherland Shire · 2016. 3. 16. · 65. Public Authority Submissions Page | 2 Analysis of Issues General Submissions have been received from the following

65. Public Authority Submissions Page | 1

65. Public Authority Submissions Summary of Issues Summary of Issues The Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure required Council to consult with (at least) the following authorities:

Transport for NSW; Roads and Maritime Services; Office of Environment and Heritage; Sydney Catchment Authority; Department of Education and Communities; State Property Authority; Housing NSW; NSW Rural Fire Service; Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport; Office of Strategic Lands; NSW Heritage Council Adjoining LGAs (Campbelltown, Liverpool, Rockdale, Wollongong) Authorities that made a submission to the earlier exhibition of the draft

LEP: o Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation

(ANSTO) o Ausgrid o NSW Trade and Investment: Crown Lands o NSW Department of Primary Industries: Fisheries NSW o NSW Health: South Eastern Sydney Local Health District o Railcorp o Sydney Water o Department of Defence (Commonwealth)

Formal written responses have been received from

Transport for NSW; Roads and Maritime Services; Office of Environment and Heritage; Sydney Catchment Authority; NSW Rural Fire Service; NSW Heritage Council Ausgrid Department of Defence (Commonwealth)

Formal written responses have been received from eight (8) of the public authorities that council was required to consult with by the Gateway Determination. These public authorities are generally those which requested changes to the zoning of land in response to the first exhibition of the draft plan, or those which have an interest in heritage matters.


Analysis of Issues General Submissions have been received from the following authorities who raise no concerns relating to the Draft LEP 2013:

Ausgrid Transport for NSW Rural Fire Service

The submissions are noted. Numerous authorities have not made any submission in relation to the draft plan as re-exhibited. Many authorities made submissions in response to the first exhibition. In most instances, the points raised in the previous submissions have been addressed in the re-exhibited DSSLEP2013. The comments and requests contained in the submissions received in relation to the re-exhibited draft plan relate to zoning of land and heritage issues. These are discussed in the following sections. It should be noted that in relation to some of the zoning issues raised by public authorities, there is a direct conflict between the requests made by the various authorities, or the zoning requested by a public authority is contrary to a Planning Direction issued by the Planning and Infrastructure. While it is not Council’s role to be arbiter between the State departments and agencies, Planning and Infrastructure has indicated that Council should adopt the most logical outcome in relation to these issues. However, Council should bear in mind that when the plan is considered for finalisation by the Department of Planning and the Minister, the comments made by public authorities and Council’s response will be carefully considered. Zoning Issues Defence Infrastructure The Department of Defence has made a submission relating to the zoning of the Sutherland Multi-User Depot on Rawson Parade, Sutherland. The Sutherland Multi-user Depot on Rawson Parade, Sutherland has been proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. This is consistent with the proposed zoning of the remainder of the precinct between Rawson Parade and the railway line. The submission requests the rezoning of the land to SP2 Infrastructure (Defence). The submission articulates Defence’s concern that the proposed zone may not appropriately convey the use of the land by Defence to existing and future residents in close proximity to the Multi-User Depot. The submission highlights that the zoning of the land as R2 Low Density Residential is inconsistent with LEP Practice Note 11-002 and requests that the advice contained in the practice note is followed, and that the land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Defence).


LEP Practice Note 11-002 Preparing LEPs using the Standard Instrument provides standard zones provide guidance on the use of the various zones in the Standard Instrument. It advises that ‘Areas of Commonwealth land used for Defence purposes should be zoned SP2 (Defence)’. The zoning of this site has been previously considered in response to a previous submission from the Department of Defence (See Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report May 2013). The land is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, consistent with the proposed zoning of the remainder of the precinct between Rawson Parade and the railway line. Zoning this land SP2 Infrastructure (Defence) is not considered appropriate given the location within a built up urban area, and the likely long-term future of the Sutherland Centre. The R2 zoning does not preclude the Department of Defence from undertaking defence-related activities and development on the site as these would be approved under Commonwealth legislation. No change to the exhibited zoning is warranted. Road Infrastructure The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) has made a submission responding to two changes that council resolved to make to the previously exhibited draft plan, as these changes were not requested by the RMS. RMS has indicated no objection to the proposed zoning of 29R River Road, Woronora subject to the proposed maximum building height having no impact on the existing bridge. Independent Review Recommendations Recommendation 74: The outcome that the entire site at 29r River Road Woronora be zoned E3 to allow residential use is acceptable. Implications of Independent Review Recommendation The Independent Review also considered this site (fully reported in Chapter 59: 29R River Road) and made the above recommendation. RMS has also indicated that it has no objection to the rezoning of land at Old Illawarra Road, Menai opposite Rosewall Drive, subject to a road closure application being submitted to RMS for consideration if the land previously public road is to be closed. This land is currently zoned Zone 5 - Multiple Dwelling A, having been the subject of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006 (Amendment No. 9), made by the NSW State Government on 13


April 2012. Accordingly the land was exhibited as the equivalent zone, R3 Medium Density Residential. The correction of a drafting error to apply FSR, height and lot size controls to the land in the second exhibition of DSSLEP2013 was reviewed by the Independent Review. This is more fully reported in Chapter 37: 697 Old Illawarra Road, Menai. The RMS submission is noted. No change is required. National Parks Estate A submission has been received from the Office of Environment and Heritage, with particular focus on zoning matters relating to Zone E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves. The submission focuses on three main topics:

Zoning of roads through national parks Zoning of waterways as E1 Zoning of specific sites/land parcels.

The underlying basis of the submission is that the E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves zone should only be applied to land which forms part of the national parks estate.

Zoning of roads: The submission reiterates the previous request that roads (and any other land that is not part of the OEH estate) should not be zoned E1. The submission acknowledges council’s advice that Practice Note10-001 Zoning Infrastructure in LEPs directs that roads should be zoned in accordance with the adjoining zone. However, it argues that Practice Note PN09-002 Environmental Protection Zones states that the E1 zone should only be applied to existing areas identified under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 or areas proposed for national parks or nature reserves agreed by the NSW government. Practice Note PN10-001 Zoning Infrastructure in LEPs specifically directs that roads (other than classified roads, freeways, tollroads, transitways, highways and major roads) should be zoned in accordance with the adjoining zone. As the roads through the national parks cannot be considered higher order roads that would warrant a SP1 or SP2 zoning, there is no real alternative to the proposed E1 zoning for these roads. It is considered that there be no change to the exhibited zoning.

Zoning of Waterways: The submission objects to the proposed zoning of Shiprock Aquatic Reserve and Towra Point Aquatic Reserve as E1, as these are not part of the OEH estate although they are declared aquatic reserves. The submission recommends that council consult with the Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries in relation to the appropriate zoning of


these reserves. In its submission in response to the first exhibition of the plan, where the Aquatic Reserves were proposed to be zoned E1, the submission received from the Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries indicated the view that ‘Generally the zoning overlays seem to allow for good protection of the two Aquatic Reserves within the estuaries’. A submission from Fisheries has not been received in response to the second exhibition. Council considers that as Shiprock and Towra Point are gazetted as aquatic reserves, the E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves zone is appropriate. It is considered that there be no change to the exhibited zoning. The EOH submission also objects to the zoning of the Hacking River south of Sir Bertrams Drive as E1 (upstream from Audley weir), and suggests that this should be zoned W1 Natural Waterways. The waterway is proposed to be zoned the same as the adjacent riverbanks, which form part of the Royal National Park, as is flows through the Royal National Park. This is considered appropriate. No change to the exhibited zoning is proposed.

Zoning of specific sites/land parcels:

o EOH has advised that Lot 25 DP 874608 is gazetted Gandangara State Conservation Area and should therefore be included in the E1 zone. The plan should be amended to reflect this.

o EOH has objected to the F6 corridor through the Royal National Park being zoned SP2 Infrastructure as ‘land has not been revoked from the national park and acquired by RMS’. The subject land parcels are currently zoned Zone 24 – Transport Reservation under SSLEP2006. The SP2 Infrastructure zoning is a straightforward transfer from the existing zoning. The application of this zone is consistent with the digital data provided by RMS in response to the first exhibition of the plan which identified these properties as land to be included as SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road). No change to the exhibited zoning is proposed.

o Council has identified discrepancies between GIS data, Land Titles and Gazette Notices, particularly in respect of the boundaries of Heathcote National Park. EOH has provided details relating to the gazettal notices and Council has obtained survey plans to assist Council in accurately determining the boundary of the Heathcote National Park in the vicinity of Forum Drive. It is recommended that the boundary of the E1 zone be amended in accordance with the survey plans (attached as Appendix A).

o Lots in the Royal National Park: Discrepancies in the proposed zoning of Lots 4 and 5 DP 11990 and their inclusion in the EOH Estate have been identified. Both lots are zoned E1 National


Park and Nature Reserves in DSSLEP2013 as exhibited. EOH has confirmed that it is appropriate that these lots are zoned E1 National Park and Nature Reserves, although these are not indicated as part of the National Parks Estate mapping. No change is required to the exhibited plan.

RMS land on Woolooware Bay (Part Lot 3 DP 1165618) The Roads and Maritime Service has reviewed the exhibited changes to DSSLEP2013 in relation to the above land. RMS raises no objection to the proposed Clause 6.25 which makes provision for marine-based industry on the land. However, it is requested that the land be zoned IN4 Working Waterfront, rather than the proposed E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves.

The zoning of this site has been previously considered (See Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report May 2013) as a previous submission from RMS on behalf of a marine contractor requested that the site be zoned IN4 Working Waterfront, and for the land use table for the IN4 Working Waterfront zone be amended to include ‘Marine operation base’ and ‘boatsheds’ as uses permitted with consent Consideration of the previous request for the site to be zoned IN4 Working Waterfront acknowledged that the site has previously been used for marine related activities due to it having access to a navigable waterway. However, on balance it was considered that the site is not appropriate for the application of the IN4 Working Waterfront zone. The report on submissions received recommended that it was not appropriate to rezone the site to facilitate industrial uses on the land.


Despite the officers recommendation, in order to allow marine activities on the site, council resolved by Mayoral Minute No.6/13-14 to include a specific local provision be added to enable marine-based industry on the land. This is included as Clause 6.25. The submission received from RMS indicates support for the inclusion of clause 6.25 as this allows ‘marine operation base’ and ‘boatsheds’ and repeats the previous request for the site to be zoned IN4. The site is currently zoned 7(a) Waterways under State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989. The objectives of the zone are to protect and enhance the aquatic environment, protect and conserve significant wetland areas and maintain the viability of the oyster, prawn and fishing industries. Permissible uses within the zone include oyster farming, moorings, aquaculture and maintenance dredging. These uses do not include marine related industrial-type uses. The subject land is within the Towra Point Aquatic Reserve. The aquatic reserve was declared to protect seagrasses, mangroves and marine animals, and together with the Towra Point Nature Reserve, form the Towra International Wetlands. These wetlands are the largest and most botanically diverse remaining estuarine wetland complex in the Sydney region. As Towra Point Aquatic Reserve is a formally protected reserve, the E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves has been applied to the entire reserve area. Clause 6.25 is an anomaly, allowing industrial uses in the reserve. The Fisheries NSW submission on the first exhibition of the DSSLEP2013 notes that the ‘zoning overlays seem to allow good protection of the two Aquatic Reserves within the estuaries’, and state that riparian buffer zones need to be maximised adjacent to Aquatic Reserves. No submission has been received in response to the second exhibition including Clause 6.25. In light of the submission received in response to the first exhibition, it would be surprising if Fisheries NSW support the inclusion of Clause 6.25. In response to the submission, and consideration of the environmental values associated with the Towra Point Aquatic Reserve, it is considered that rezoning the site IN4 Working Waterfront is inappropriate. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Clause 6.25 is deleted from DSSLEP2013 as it is inappropriate to permit industrial uses in the reserve. Independent Review Recommendations Recommendation 82: The Council’s decision to support the potential use of the land at Captain Cook Drive Woolooware Bay for maritime based industry is appropriate and in view of the Council’s decision, the site should be zoned IN1 rather than E1.


Implications of Independent Review Recommendation The Independent Review has noted that Council supports the potential use of the land for maritime based industry. The panel also noted that the Office of Environment and Heritage does not support the zoning of the land as E1 and the Department of Primary Industries has not opposed the introduction of Clause 6.25. The Independent Review has therefore recommended the rezoning of the site to IN1 General Industry. The IN1 General Industry zone permits, subject to development consent, a range of industrial and warehouse type uses, including heavy industry. The site is in an environmentally sensitive location, and the full range of uses permissible in the zone is not considered appropriate for this location. The Independent Review has found that ‘Council’s decision to support for the potential use of the land at Captain Cook Drive Woolooware Bay for maritime based industry is appropriate’. The submission received requested that the land be zoned IN4 Working Waterfront. The IN4 zone permits maritime based industrial activities. Clause 6.25 also permits maritime-based industry. It is therefore considered more appropriate that, if Council wishes to continue to support maritime based industry on the site, that the land be zoned IN4 Working Waterfront, with the same development controls as applicable to other land with the IN4 zone namely: FSR 1.5:1 and maximum building height of 16m.

Summary of Final Recommended Changes in Response to Zoning Issues: It is recommended that the following changes be made to the exhibited plan:

Lot 25 DP 874608 to be zoned E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

Boundaries of Heathcote National Park in the vicinity of Forum Drive, Heathcote be amended in accordance with the recently obtained survey plans.

That RMS Land on Woolooware Bay (part Lot 3 DP 1165618) be rezoned IN4 Working Waterfront, with FSR of 1.5:1 and maximum building height of 16m.

That Clause 6.25 Marine Based Industries, Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware Bay be retained.

Heritage Issues The submission received by the Heritage Office addresses the proposed removal of 5 Evelyn Street, Sylvania; Jannali Railway Station; Loftus Junction Railway Box and Illawong Cottages from Schedule 5: Heritage. The


submission requests that council provide justification for the proposed removal of these from DSSLEP2013. In its submission, the Heritage Council recommends that decisions made by council in relation to the removal such items should be informed by a heritage study, and that the removal of items without justification sets an undesirable precedent for the management of heritage items in the Sutherland LGA. A detailed discussion related to 5 Evelyn Street is provided in Chapter 10 of this report. Jannali Railway Station Railcorp previously advised that the Jannali Railway Station has been removed from the Railcorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW in 2009 and requested that the item be removed from the LEP Heritage Schedule. This request was previously considered - see Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report May 2013. Council is in the process of reviewing all items on its Heritage Schedule. The previous report to council recommended that it was not appropriate to remove the item from the LEP prior to the completion of the review. However, council resolved (Mayoral Minute No.6/13-14) to remove the item from the Schedule. The Heritage Review has not yet been finalised. In light of the Heritage Office’s comments, it is considered appropriate that the item should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and its continued listing be reconsidered following the completion of the Heritage Review. Loftus Junction Railway Signal Box Railcorp previously advised that the Loftus Junction Railway Signal Box has been proposed for removal from the Railcorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register as it does not meeting the criteria for listing in the Register as the signal box has been highly altered and no longer demonstrates its key characteristics. The item is also proposed to be delisted from the State and the NSW Heritage Council is currently considering the delisting. Railcorp requested that the item be removed from the LEP Heritage Schedule. This request was previously considered - see Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report May 2013. The report recommended that until the NSW Heritage Council has considered and come to a final decision on the proposed delisting, the item should be retained on the LEP Heritage Schedule. However, council resolved (Mayoral Minute No.6/13-14) to remove the item from the Schedule. In light of the Heritage Office’s comments, it is considered appropriate that the item should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and its continued listing be reconsidered following the NSW Heritage Council’s final decision on the proposed delisting from the State Heritage Register.


Independent Review Recommendations Recommendation 89 (part): Given the Heritage Office’s submission to LEP2, Jannali Station and the Loftus Junction Railway Box should remain heritage items until the Council’s heritage advisor advises otherwise. However, this should not take so long that a decision cannot be made before the draft LEP is exhibited again. Implications of Independent Review Recommendation Council’s Heritage Advisor has provided the following comment in relation to the listing of Jannali Station and the Loftus Junction Railway Box: Jannali Station Jannali Station is an item of local archaeological significance listed in the Schedule 6 of the SSLEP2006. The statement of significance in Council’s Inventory Sheet refers to the building as a local significant structure representing the part played by railway in the development of the Shire, and the role of Council in stimulating development. The building, although altered, still contains elements of its original construction and the road overbridge has a high level of integrity. The bridge conserves most of the original fabric from the 1930’s. The information provided by RailCorp on the letter of November 2009 is incomplete and does not include any information regarding the history and evolution of the place. It is recommended the Jannali station remains listed until a review of archaeological items is conducted by Council or further information is provided by RailCorp, which includes the historical, social and built fabric assessment of the 1930’s station building and overbridge. [Note: the November 2009 letter referred to is the advice provided to Council by Railcorp that Jannali Railway Station did not meet the threshold for listing on Railcorp’s Section 170 Register.] Loftus Junction Railway signal box The Loftus Junction railway signal box is of State and local significance, the State Registry’s statement of significance reads as follows,


“This is the best surviving example of a small signal box for a remote function from the Victorian period. The building is of excellent proportion, of high visual quality and in relation to the adjacent tramway museum forms an extremely important element of the south coast railway system. The box has a typically elevated floor to allow the signal equipment to operate under it and was designed to work the junction points and signals. The building has a pitched gable ended corrugated iron roof without eaves overhang. Access is through a door in the up end and a small timber staircase. Windows extend around three sides. The scale of the building is small reflecting the size of the location.” Although the Loftus Junction Signal Box has been highly altered, and its integrity has been severely diminished by the removal of the signalling equipment, the Heritage Council found that further research is required regarding the social significance and future uses of the site. The matter of the removal of the item from the State Register has been deferred until further information is provided by RailCorp. Therefore, it is recommended that the local listing remains until further research is made available by RailCorp regarding the social significance of the item. In light of the advice provided by Council’s heritage advisor, it is recommended that Jannali Station and the Loftus Junction Railway Signal Box be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and the Heritage Map. Illawong Cottages The listing of the Illawong Cottages was also previously considered, in response to a submission from Crown Lands (See Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report May 2013). The submission from Crown Lands noted that Illawong Cottages are listed as heritage items “without explicit justification”, and argued that the authority is not in a position to undertake their rehabilitation directly, but suggested that it may be possible to attract a proponent to do so, provided council offers incentives to prospective development. The previous report to council recommended that the heritage listing of the cottages should be maintained. However, council resolved (Mayoral Minute No.6/13-14) to remove the item from the Schedule. The cottages are located on the riverbanks of the Georges River National Park, at Illawong, near Old Ferry Road. They were originally licensed by the former Department of Lands as holiday and fishing shacks. The previous submission by Crown Lands argued that the cottages are currently occupied by squatters with no ties to the holders of the original Permissive Occupancies, and are considered unsafe by Crown Lands. The cottages were identified as items of heritage significance in the Sutherland Foreshore Heritage Study undertaken in 1996 by Paul Davies and subsequently listed in the LEP. A comprehensive review of the cottages was undertaken in 2011 as part of the Foreshore Heritage Review, and individually


and as a group the cottages were found to be above the threshold for listing as heritage items. In light of this study and the Heritage Office’s comments, it is considered appropriate that the Illawong cottages should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage. Crown Lands had previously requested if the cottages remain listed in the Heritage Schedule, that in addition to the standard conservation incentives clause, the lands be listed in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses with ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ identified as a permissible use. Alternatively, the authority has previously suggested that consideration be given to inserting a clause equivalent to Clause 18 of SSLEP2006 that provides for the removal of waterfront structures as a mechanism to achieve the removal of these cottages. Council has previously resolved to no longer support the equivalent of Clause 18 of SSLEP2006 to require the removal of waterfront structures. The standard conservation incentives clause (Clause 5.10(10)) allows council to grant consent ‘to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan’, if certain conditions are met and the conservation of the item depends upon that consent. These incentives would allow a range of uses that would not otherwise be permitted to be permissible if this would allow the heritage item to be conserved. Listing the cottages in the Additional Permissible Uses Schedule is therefore unnecessary. Independent Review Recommendations Recommendation 89 (part): The Illawong Cottages should be kept on the heritage list as no-one has argued that they do not meet the necessary criteria. Implications of the Independent Review Recommendation The Independent Review Panel’s recommendation is consistent with the Officer’s recommendations in response to submissions received to the first and second exhibition of the Draft LEP. Woronora Dam The Sydney Catchment Authority has requested amendments to the LEP Heritage Schedule and mapping for Woronora Dam. The submission requests:


Amendment of the property description in Schedule 5 and the Heritage Map to only include Part Lot 1 DP 830604, Lots 10 and 11 DP 1078435 and the road leading to the Woronora Dam.

Correction on a numbering anomaly where the Heritage Map labels the Woronora Dam as Item number 4301 but lists it as Item number 4215 in Schedule 5.

The properties to be included in the property description have been previously considered in Chapter 55 of the Response to Submissions Report (May 2013). The requested amendment to the property description excludes the sites of the townships specifically established for the construction of the dam (Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 and 9 DP 1078435). However, the townships are specifically mentioned in the site description in the local heritage inventory. It is considered that these properties should be retained as they are identified in the local heritage inventory. The numbering anomaly should be corrected by amending the Heritage Map to identify the Woronora Dam as item 4215.

Summary of Final Recommended Changes in Response to Heritage Issues: It is recommended that the following changes be made to the exhibited plan:

Jannali Railway Station should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and indicated on the Heritage Map

Loftus Junction Railway Signal Box should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and indicated on the Heritage Map

Illawong Cottages should be reinstated in Schedule 5: Heritage and indicated on the Heritage Map

A numbering anomaly relating to the Woronora Dam on the Heritage Map and in Schedule 5 be resolved

Conclusion This chapter of the report reviews the submissions received from public authorities in response to the re-exhibition of DSSLEP2013. Some of the issues are straightforward to resolve in favour of the request from the authority, while no change to the draft plan is recommended in response to other issues raised. There are a number of zoning issues where the public authorities have articulated opposing views. Although it is not council’s role to be the arbiter between different parts of the State government, in order for the plan to be re-


exhibited, Council has to decide on the most logical response; however, when the plan is considered for finalisation by Planning and Infrastructure and the Minister, the differing positions of the public authorities as well as Council’s response will be carefully considered. Changes to the plan may be made by the Minister as an arbiter between the opposing views of the State departments and agencies.

Documents

65. Public Authorities - Sutherland Shire · 2016. 3. 16. · 65. Public Authority Submissions Page | 2 Analysis of Issues General Submissions have been received from the following