APPENDIX No: 20 - Turramurra Centre and Site Specific Submission Summary and Response Table

Item No: GB.1

Matter Related to specific Areas & Properties

THEME		ISSUE/CONCERN		COMMENT	RECOMMENDATION
Building heights - general		If Turramurra is defined as a village under the urban consolidation plan, we strongly object to the 3-5 storey buildings in Turramurra around the Pacific Highway. There should be buildings no greater than two storeys to keep everything in perspective. The low rise shops contribute to the village feel and this would be lost if these proposals were to go ahead.		Turramurra is not classified as a Village. The existing building heights within the draft LEP area currently vary from 2, 3, 4 and 5 storeys in height. A two storey height limit across all of Turramurra is not realistic.	No action recommended.
Building height - general		Should be an absolute ceiling of 5 storeys on future development in the village centre. If possible, 2 storeys should be approved.		The draft LEP proposes a maximum building height in Turramurra of 5 storeys. There is one exception to this where the properties nos.1440-1444 Pacific Highway are shown with a seven storey height. This is an inconsistency that can be rectified and should be rectified to show 17.5 metres (5 storeys) height.	That the maximum building height for property 1440, 1444, 1444A Pacific Highway known as 1 Lamond Drive, Turramurra be amended to 17.5 metres.
Building heights - general		Proposed building heights of 5-7 storeys not appropriate. 3-5 storeys preferred.		The draft LEP proposes a maximum building height in Turramurra of 5 storeys. There is one exception to this where the properties nos.1440-1444 Pacific Highway are shown with a seven storey height. This is an inconsistency that can be rectified and should be rectified to show 17.5 metres (5 storeys) height.	See above
Open space - general		Submission requests provision for permanent open space where there are existing council car parks.		The draft LEP shows two locations for proposed new parks: - an area of 2,700sqm on the corner of Duff Street and Allan Avenue; and - an area of 2,600sqm on the corner of Gilroy Road (as an expansion of Cameron Park)	No action recommended.
Building heights – general		Blue Gum High Forest should be protected from overshadowing and the number of storeys proposed reduced.		Any impacts, including potential overshadowing, on Blue Gum High Forest will need to be considered in detail at DA stage for any development on sites which contain or adjoin this ecological community. The number of storeys identified in the plan is a maximum and does not mean that the identified number of storeys will be achieved across a site. The design of a development will need to be informed not only by the height permitted, but also the floor space ratio, site topography, context, presence of threatened ecological communities and a range of DCP controls.	No action recommended.
Building heights - general		Does not support reclassification of community land to operational.		Reclassification is not a matter for consideration under the current draft LEP.	No action recommended.
Building heights - general		Blue Gum High Forest requires protection.		Blue Gum High Forest and other key vegetation communities are protected through a range of measures, including the biodiversity overlay and associated provisions, and the establishment of 2 environmental zones.	No action recommended.
Building heights - general		I moved here for the quiet, the leafy streets, beautiful houses and gardens, proximity to and small scale of shops and services. The proposed plan would destroy this. Original buildings should be conserved, height should be generally to 3 storeys, with 5 only where it does not overshadow neighbours.		Rohini Street shops are proposed with a two storey height limit. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists in the past confirm the submission’s claims that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP. Consequently, the proposed plan as exhibited is likely to see very little change or revitalisation in Turramurra in the commercial areas.	No action recommended.
Building heights - general		Ugly oversized buildings have destroyed the streetscape, landscape and general well being of these beautiful suburbs. 5 storey development of mix commercial and shop top housing on the Franklins site, Ray and William Streets, and Coles site, Pacific Highway shops and Pacific Highway shops adjoining Rohini Street are out of scale and excessive. 5 storey units do not provide housing choice, which is needed. These centres already provide for our daily needs. We need to plan for a village atmosphere keeping buildings as low as viable.		Rohini Street shops are proposed with a two storey height limit. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists in the past confirm the submission’s claims that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP as items or within a HCA. Consequently, the proposed plan as exhibited will see very little change or redevelopment in Turramurra in the commercial areas.	No action recommended.
Turramurra - Heritage		Some sites of heritage significance not proposed to be listed.		Those places which have undergone a heritage assessment and have been found to have cultural significance have been included in the LEP. Not all places that have significance have been assessed. Heritage is a long term commitment of Ku-ring-gai Council, who will continue to identify, assess and protect Ku-ring-gai’s heritage.	No action recommended.
Turramurra -Heritage		Indigenous cultural heritage was destroyed many years ago. The only non-indigenous cultural heritage in Turramurra is the beautiful houses being destroyed by the ugly units.		Council has responsibility under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to identify and protect indigenous heritage. It has been a request of the traditional caretakers of this area that Council do not disclose the location of indigenous heritage in Ku-ring-gai. The plan identifies non indigenous heritage via items or within HCA’s	No action recommended.
Miscellaneous		The submission states that planning for Turramurra should adopt the principles of “Transition Towns” whereby the local centres become self-contained community areas.		Many of the ideas outlined are beyond the scope of an LEP and apply to the long term place management of centres.	No action recommended.
Retail viability – Turramurra Avenue area		Key stakeholder meeting noted that any plan should seek to establish a sense of place for each retail centre, and develop a strategy to ensure future viability and sustainability. Unless the area around the Turramurra Avenue car park is significantly enhanced it will die as a retail centre, and the plan fails to address this.		Noted. Enhancement works by Council to the public areas of Turramurra will be funded by development contributions. The level of funding therefore depends on the level of development in Turramurra. Council’s vision for Turramurra is set out in the Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010 and the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010.	No action recommended.
Infrastructure - general		Need for health services, water, electricity, sewage, trains, main road traffic and open space.		Most listed matters are state-provided infrastructure - with the exception of open space. NSW State agencies are consulted as part of the planning process so they are aware of any infrastructure demands.  On this point, Council has commenced community consultation on the new park to double the size of Cameron Park and has acquired 3 out of 4 targeted lots for a park in Duff Street, Turramurra.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Turramurra Avenue		With the inclusion of the new park it is critical that Turramurra Avenue is safe. Children are forced to walk between parked cars and cannot be seen. It needs speed restrictions to ensure the safety of children crossing the road.		Turramurra Avenue is currently signposted with a 50km/h speed limit, consistent with local roads. Consideration could be given to pedestrian facilities to improve crossing conditions.	No action recommended.
Traffic - general		No actions are identified to correct existing congestion, which will get worse with increased density – especially Pacific Highway intersections with Kissing Point Road, and with Rohini Street, or circulation within area between the highway, Ray Street and the railway.		Traffic improvement measures are proposed along Pacific Hwy and on local roads, to improve access and circulation in the Turramurra local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services and development contribution funding.	No action recommended.
Parking - Turramurra Avenue		Turramurra Avenue car park should remain as many elderly residents use this car park.		There is no proposal to change parking arrangements in the Turramurra Avenue car park.	No action recommended.
Traffic and parking - general		The level of development proposed in the area is excessive - the roads are already choked and the trains are full.		Traffic improvement measures are proposed along Pacific Hwy and on local roads, to improve access and circulation in the Turramurra local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services.	No action recommended.
Traffic and parking - general		We already can’t find parking in the street, and the loss of the car park would make parking impossible, especially when the church has functions.		There is no proposal to change parking arrangements in the Turramurra Ave car park as part of this LEP.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Pacific Hwy / Kissing Point Road intersection		A dedicated left turn lane is essential for the Kissing Point Road/Pacific Highway intersection.		Traffic improvement measures are proposed at the intersection of Pacific Hwy / Kissing Point Road, including a dedicated left turn lane from Kissing Point Road to Pacific Hwy. This proposal is subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services.	No action recommended.
Traffic – Pacific Highway		The plans do not show plans to relieve congestion – specifically intersections: Kissing Point Road/Pacific Hwy and Pacific Hwy/Rohini Street plus circulation around Turramurra.		It is not the LEP that illustrates infrastructure; that appears in the DCP and Contributions Plan.  The current Contributions Plan provides for c.$9M in signals, intersection upgrades, road modifications and two small link road for Turramurra including both intersections mentioned being part of a total of $23M+ public domain works for Turramurra. In this context, however, and following an assessment of the economic viability of development potential for Turramurra, it may be that not all such works can be funded – or will be triggered by the volume of development. Council will continue to monitor and manage the implementation of the works programme of the Development Contributions Plan in conjunction with development monitoring.	No action recommended.
Traffic – Pacific Highway		Support for the Friends of Turramurra submission. In addition would like: 1. traffic sorted out at corner Kissing Point Road and Pacific Highway; and 2. a pedestrian walkway over the highway for people coming to and from the station.		Traffic improvement measures are proposed at the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Kissing Point Road, including a dedicated left turn lane from Kissing Point Road to Pacific Hwy. This proposal is subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. There is no proposal for overhead walkways over Pacific Hwy – pedestrian crossing facilities will be incorporated in the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Kissing Point Road.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Rohini Street		How does the draft LEP intend to handle the increase in traffic flow from Rohini Street to Pacific Hwy?		The traffic signals at the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Rohini Street are proposed to be removed and relocated to the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Turramurra Ave. Traffic volumes in Rohini St will be reduced as a result.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Pacific Hwy		Tidal flow on Pacific Highway in Turramurra needs attention, to alleviate peak hour bottlenecks.		Council has a proposal for widening Pacific Hwy to remove the tidal flow which is subject to further discussions with Roads and Maritime Services. Pacific Hwy is an arterial road and is intended to carry through traffic. However, the proposed F3-M2 Link may help to alleviate some through traffic. This link is the responsibility of the Roads and Maritime Services and the Federal Government. Council will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai.	No action recommended.
Traffic - general		Turramurra suffers from huge increase in traffic, and no additional commuter parking in last 20yrs. Increases will be disastrous without cooperation from State Rail, RMS and Council to improve parking, traffic flow and access for residents, including pedestrians and cyclists.		Commuter parking is the responsibility of Transport for NSW, however additional residential development close to the rail centres is unlikely to increase commuter parking demand to date. NSW government has recently announced the provision of additional commuter parking in Lindfield and Gordon. The Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads and public transport (rail and bus) lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. The NSW Government is preparing to release the draft NSW Long Term Transport Masterplan, which seeks to coordinate and integrate across all modes of transport to create a coordinated transport plan for NSW.	No action recommended.
Car Parking – Council car parks		Submission expresses concern about the Ray/William Street Carparks – if they were developed, where do residents park their cars to go to the Uniting Church or to do shopping in the areas.		Public car parking numbers would be maintained at the Ray/William Street Car parks if the site is ever redeveloped. There may be future scope to consider the delivery of improved car parking in conjunction with new multi-purpose community facilities and integrated with adjoining development but even conceptual design cannot occur under the present community classification. Uniting Church visitors could use the Turramurra Avenue car park. There is no present proposal to change parking arrangements in the Turramurra Avenue car park as part of this LEP.	No action recommended.
Commuter car parking – Ray Street		Proposal to rezone council car park at Turramurra Library will result in loss of commuter parking, and no alternative location is proposed. Commuter parking should be left as is and increased, given additional dwellings proposed. Adequate commuter parking needs to be provided for Turramurra Station.		The new zone will not have any direct implications on the current parking provision. Proposals for the Council car park at Turramurra Library will seek to maintain commuter parking spaces. However, commuter parking is the responsibility of Transport for NSW, and additional residential development close to the rail centres is unlikely to increase commuter parking demand.	No action recommended.
Reclassification – Council car parks		Turramurra Avenue car park, Ray Street car park and community facilities should remains as community classified public land and not be developed.		Reclassification is not part of the exhibited plan.	No action recommended.
Open space – Council car parks		Carparks should be used to provide open space/grassed town square and no 5 storey development should proceed.		The draft LEP shows two locations for proposed new parks: - an area of 2,700sqm on the corner of Duff Street and Allan Avenue; - an area of 2,600sqm on the corner of Gilroy Road (as an expansion of Cameron Park).	No action recommended.
Reclassification – Council car parks		Ray Street car park should remain as community classified land. Turramurra Avenue car park, MOW and Senior Citizens Centre should remain as community classified land and zoned 2 storey consistent with Rohini Street, to preserve heritage and aesthetics. Reference is made to the opinion of a James Colman, a planning consultant, who recommended the inclusion in the draft LEP of a firm commitment that community land will not be disposed of for private purposes in line with the Local Government Act 1993, that community land cannot be sold under that Act, and that open space zonings should not be seen as stand-by housing sites, as this would result in an irreversible shift to private ownership.		Reclassification is not relevant to the exhibited plan. The exhibited plan does not seek to reclassify any land.	No action recommended.
Reclassification – Turramurra Avenue car park		Turramurra Avenue car park, MOW and Senior Citizens Centre should be zoned 2 storey consistent with Rohini Street, to preserve heritage and aesthetics. Reference is made to the opinion of a James Colman, a planning consultant, who recommended the inclusion in the draft LEP of a firm commitment that community land will not be disposed of for private purposes in line with the Local Government Act 1993, that community land cannot be sold under that Act, and that open space zonings should not be seen as stand-by housing sites, as this would result in an irreversible shift to private ownership.		There are no heritage items within the subject area. The croquet lawn and associated cottage are the ‘character’ elements within this precinct, these elements are proposed to be retained in the future – Refer Town Centres Public Domain Plan – Turramurra. Reclassification is not part of the exhibited plan.	No action recommended.
Open space - general		Existing open space (at-grade car parks at Coles, Turramurra Library and Uniting Church) will be zoned for 3 and 5 storeys. No open space or car parking facility should be lost to unit development 2 and a half of the 4 public spaces are existing public reserves.		There is no public open space in Turramurra that is proposed to be lost, other than the proposed William Street RE1 sites (under the former Town centres LEP) 2010. Council resolved on 3 April 2011 that commercial properties Nos 4, 6, 8 and 10 William Street, Turramurra be zoned B2 – Local Centre and be removed from the Land Reservation Acquisition Map (Local Open Space). It is now recommended that Council consider these sites to be reserved for Local Open Space SP2 as this precinct provides an opportunity for an central civic square, the owners of 1 Ray street have indicated their desire to fully develop their site- limiting the opportunity for a public civic space. In addition Council already has commenced the acquisition process with No 4 William Street being (272 sqm) out of the total of 677 sqm. The total amount of open space will be increased by over 5,000sqm.	That council consider Nos 4, 6, 8 and 10 William Street, Turramurra be zoned RE1 – Local Centre and 6, 8 and 10 William street, Turramurra be identified on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map (Local Open Space SP2).
Open space		Protect public land and open space especially in the heritage sensitive library area in station precinct (Ray and William Streets) and the Hillview Conservation Area in response to “over the top” losses of canopy and biodiversity. Link these through a heritage walk.		There is no public open space in Turramurra that is proposed to be lost, other than the former other than the proposed William Street RE1 land (under the former Town centres LEP) 2010 (see comments above). The total amount of open space will be increased by over 5,000sqm. Ray and William Streets and the library have not been assessed as having heritage significance. Hillview is included in draft HCA C40. Interpretive walks are not the subject of an LEP however Council has already proposed the idea. Refer Town Centres Public Domain Plan – Turramurra. Council to look into opportunities for interpretive heritage projects once the draft LEP has been gazetted. Such projects could include but not be limited to interpretive walks, plaques and public art.	No action recommended.
Public land - general		Public land in Turramurra needs to be retained to provide a sense of open space, and to retain some village ambience.		The sale or divestment of public land is not a relevant matter to the draft LEP.	No action recommended.
Car parking – Council car parks		Need to keep open car parks on Ray Street and Franklins to retain village character.		There is an opportunity to provide new open space areas with parking underground. This may further improve the amenity and character of these areas.	No action recommended.
Sale of public land - Council car parks		Public land at Ray Street, Hillview and Meals on Wheels should not be sold but kept for public amenity.		The sale or divestment of public land is not a relevant matter to the draft LEP. Before Council can sell land it is required to go through a public reclassification process including a public hearing.	No action recommended.
Housing choice - general		There is a lack of housing choice in Turramurra with inadequate apartment availability close to the train station for ease of commuting into the city for work.		A key objective of the LEP is to provide for a variety of housing types close to transport, including shop top housing. Support for the LEP noted.	No action recommended.
Community facilities - general		Community assets should not be seen as sites to maximise profits for developers. Improvements to the library and senior services should not have to depend on developer funding since council must be receiving higher rate revenue from new dwellings in the area.		Council owns many sites within the local centres that can be revitalized, this may involve some redevelopment. The improved facilities and services will be used by the local community.Council in financing any redevelopment plans will use a range of funding sources- including funds from Council rates and development contribution funds provided by the new development for their share of the increased demand for facilities and services.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		Retailer in Turramurra is concerned that Turramurra has little growth planned and the centre is dying, which is bad for retail. Started losing banks, then post office and soon Turramurra will be dead. With all the residential units recently, the centre is not developed to meet the needs of these residents. Previous plan to connect the 3 areas of Turramurra has been discarded. Please build a new town centre and make Turramurra more fun to live in.		The business owner highlights a concern that is repeated in several of the local centres along the Pacific Highway where increasing ‘for lease’ signs are displayed and long-term vacancies are becoming more common. Increasing local resident demand for local retail and revitalising the local centres are an important aspect of keeping these centres vibrant places to be, however the business owner is correct that in the case of Turramurra, further reductions in total potential development are likely to inhibit the achievement of the overall objective. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		Object to the reduction of heights in Turramurra from 8 storey to 5 storeys. This reduction will not enable successful revitalisation of the Centre which will continue to deteriorate with limited choice in retail forcing people to spend their money outside Ku-ring-gai (at Hornsby, Ryde and Thornleigh). Turramurra needs a better shopping centre that offers choice. Economic feasibility studies need to be done to justify the reduction of height from 8 to 5 storeys as 5 storey development is not viable and effectively prevents redevelopment. This means revitalization and upgrades through s94 contributions, including parking, shops, parks will not occur. Pedestrian through traffic is minimal in Turramurra as businesses and facilities like post office and variety of banks move out and make way for cheap shops. This business owner is seeing an ongoing decline in his trade. There is little reason for people to walk around this town centre. The upgrading of footpaths and facilities needs to come out of s94 contributions, but if the height is reduced it is unlikely these contributions will amount to any significant or meaningful changes for the community. Councillors need to be aware of the tired and rundown Turramurra they are perpetuating by reducing development in Turramurra. If there are no reports to back their decision then the 8 storey should be reinstated.		The issues raised in these submissions are noted. This submission confirms the voting patterns from the preliminary consultation undertaken by Council. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table. The writer is correct in that priority for expenditure of contributions is triggered by causal and geographic nexus. Limited development in Turramurra will mean that cash-flow may not be sufficient to fund all the presently proposed public domain improvements. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		Objects to reduction of building heights in Turramurra town centre from 8 storeys to 5 storeys. Submission claims that redevelopment will not be feasible. Request Council amend draft LEP to provide building heights of 8 storeys and FSR of 3.0:1.		The issues raised in these submissions are noted. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		Plan proposes to discourage change by lowering building heights from 8 to 5 storeys and reducing FSRs. Please encourage property owners to build me a better shopping centre, with new car parks like Asquith, or indoor centres that avoid walking along the highway, housing close to rail so I can walk to shops, restaurants and station, and a nice park where I can sit and eat lunch in the sun (rather than my car). I am embarrassed to bring friends here to this old and rundown area – and where would we meet – a deserted park near the railway station? A coffee shop next to highway traffic? If planning for 30 years – plan for young people.		The issues raised in these submissions are noted. This submission confirms the voting patterns from the preliminary consultation undertaken by Council. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		The LEP is not consistent with S117 directions or the key directions in the North Subregion draft Subregional Strategy as it will not lead to the revitalisation of the Turramurra centre. Council is too focused on the 10,000 dwelling target rather then the redevelopment of key sites close to the railway station. Turramurra is losing shoppers to centres outside the LGA because of the degraded centre. The controls in the LEP won’t promote the upgrading of the centres as they are unviable.		The Planning Proposal accompanying the draft LEP indentifies areas of inconsistency with section 117 directions. The Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has determined that the inconsistencies with these directions have been sufficiently justified to enable public exhibition. However, Council is also required to give detailed consideration to submissions and the details of the viability of future development. The issues raised in these submissions are noted. This submission confirms the voting patterns from the preliminary consultation undertaken by Council. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Dwelling yields - general		All proposed dwellings to be counted to ensure that there is no breaching of the 10,000 limit. As council has until 2031 to approve the remaining 4000 dwellings there appears to be no reason to expedite any further approvals in the near future. Previously approved dwellings should be completed first.		The draft Local Environmental Plan provides capacity for less than 10,000 dwellings and the supporting DCP will provide design guidelines. It must be remembered that an LEP cannot legislate a certain number of dwellings or dwelling mix on each site which would be the only way of guaranteeing an exact number. Council has no control over when an applicant can lodge a DA for the redevelopment of a site and is bound to accept lodgement. Once the DA is lodged, there is a time set by the legislation in which Council must determine the DA. Ku-ring-gai Council will continue to determine development applications on their merits and defend refusals of inappropriate development in the Land and Environment Court.	No action recommended.
Dwelling yields		All potential dwellings on the Franklins, Coles/Pacific Hwy shops and Pacific Hwy shops adjacent to Rohini Street should be counted towards our dwelling yield. There should be no increase to the exhibited floor space ratio, as that would add to the bulk of development.		Yield calculations in the case of the commercial properties on the highway include a take-up rate of 50%, these areas are necessarily discounted due to long, narrow blocks and fragmented ownership patterns rendering the likelihood of achieving a consolidated site of sufficient size to effect underground car-parking, of limited probability. Where Council owns land within the local centres and that land is classified community this means it can not be sold or long term leased. There is currently no process underway which would see some or all of the Council land in Turramurra reclassified. The decision was therefore made to exclude these lands from yield calculations.	No action recommended.
Development Viability - general		Turramurra FSRs do not provide any incentive for redevelopment to clean up the facades and reinvigorate the highway. One owner has a site of 628m^2 with an FSR of 2.5:1 and 5 storeys. He is better off doing nothing. When you have a site worth $7M (based on rent and market appraisal) and the total gross sales under the Centres LEP is $12M, it will never happen.		The issues raised in this submission are noted. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Under-development		Submission requests that building of new shops should be encouraged in Turramurra like in other centres. Examples provided are St Leonards, Castle Hill, Macquarie Centre and Thornleigh Marketplace.		Rohini Street shops are proposed with a two storey height limit. Other parts of the centre are zoned for 5 storeys; however, development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past indicated that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP. Consequently, the proposed plan will see very little change in Turramurra in the commercial areas. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Development viability - general		No evidence in Planning Proposal that 5 storeys or less is not viable. Options for 3-5 storeys were shown as viable for Turramurra in community workshops.		Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past confirm that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Over-development		Retail provision in Turramurra provides more expansion than is needed, needs to be scaled back.		Rohini Street shops are proposed with a two storey height limit. Other parts of the centre are zoned for 5 storeys; however, development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past indicated that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP. Consequently, the proposed plan will see very little change in Turramurra in the commercial areas. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity - Wonga Wonga Street		There are significant Blue Gum High Forest populations between the corners of Wonga Wonga Street that need protection.		These trees are identified on the biodiversity overlay, and any redevelopment of these or adjoining sites will need to be designed and located to address the matters of consideration listed in clause 6.5 of the LEP.	No action recommended.
Traffic – Stonex Street		No mention or allowance on plans for road connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street. Is the road still planned? If not, is high rise expected to be built right to boundary of 5 Kissing Point Road? If so, request that 5 storeys be stepped down towards Kissing Pt Rd to allow northerly sun into 5 Kissing Point Road.		Noted - the road connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street will be detailed in the Local Centres DCP.	No action recommended.
Building height - Hillview precinct		The proposed height for the Hillview precinct is unnecessary and excessive.		A 2 storey height is proposed in the exhibited draft LEP, which is the height of dwelling houses in an R2 zoning. The proposed height is recommended for change, this is discussed below.	Refer to the recommendation below.
Section 117 Inconsistency – Hillview Estate		Submission from Office of Strategic Lands - Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Submission objects to the proposed down-zoning of subject site from Residential 2(d) to R2 Low Density Residential. Requests that the site be zoned R4 with an FSR of 0.8:1 as per the now invalid Town Centres LEP 2010. Submission states “there is...no strategic justification for the proposed R2 zone given the site’s location in central Turramurra and located some 50 metres from Turramurra train station”. The site is currently zoned Residential 2(d) under the KPSO with an FSR of 1.3:1 and a height limit of 3 storeys. The proposed R2 zoning is a down zoning and is not justifiable on planning grounds. The site was subject to a rezoning process in 1998. The current zoning represents a result of a comprehensive planning approach to the site including technical studies and community consultation. The down zoning contradicts the findings of the previous process. The current zoning is consistent with the objects of the EP&A Act, namely- ‘to encourage the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of the land’. The current zoning will enable redevelopment that will achieve a good planning outcome for the stakeholders.		The site is currently zoned under the KPSO residential 2(d) with an FSR of 0.85:1 and height of 3 storeys. The proposed R2 zone for the subject site was put in place to ensure protection of the cultural significance of the site in addition to the listing of the individual Items in Schedule 5 of the draft LEP. However at the OMC 3^rd April 2012 Council resolved to add a further layer of protection in the form of HCA C40 across the site and adjoining properties. In light of the current level of protection proposed for the site i.e. HCA + Items the Submission’s objection to the proposed down zoning appears valid. Down zoning the land and adding two layers of heritage overly burdens the site and without some development potential on the site there will be very little incentive for land owners to maintain and restore the Items. Appropriate zoning should endeavour to achieve a planning outcome that is both reflective of the need for the orderly and economic use of land and the conservation its heritage value. It is therefore recommended that the zone, site FSR and building height be increased to R4 zone FSR of 0.8:1 and 5 storey maximum height	That property 1334-1340 Pacific Highway, Turramurra be zoned R4 (High Density Residential) zone, and that the maximum FSR be amended to 0.8:1 and the maximum building height to 17.5 metres.
Properties: 1356, 1358 and 1360 Pacific Highway Turramurra		Redevelopment will not be viable under draft LEP provisions. Concern expressed about reduction in FSR from 1.0:1 when compared to the Town Centres LEP 2010 which proposed an FSR of 2.0:1. Redevelopment not economically viable. Recommend floor space ratio of 2.0:1.		Town Centres LEP 2010 found invalid by the Land and Environment Court and therefore the prior zone has no status. Council’s strategy for much of Turramurra is to translate the KPSO provisions of the commercial zones i.e. 3(a)-(A2). This strategy has been applied uniformly to all commercial properties in Turramurra, except for the two key sites on Kissing Point Road and Ray Street. This Strategy was supported by Council’s community consultation process. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists in the past confirm the submission’s claims that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP.	No action recommended.
Heritage – Hillview and no.1362 Pacific Hwy		Supports Hillview precinct HCA, but should also include 1362 Pacific Hwy (old chemist shop).		The boundary of HCA C40 is as per Council ‘s resolution at the Ordinary meeting of 3 April 2012. Any review of HCAs outside of those areas already included in the heritage peer review will occur after the LEP gazettal and changes will take the form of an LEP amendment.	No action recommended.
Heritage – Hillview and surrounds		All buildings fronting the highway, including the old chemist shop, the old Westpac building, the stables Camphor laurels, old county road and Hillview itself should be included in an HCA. Restoration of the chemist shop would boost this as a health precinct.		See comments above. In future, Council will reconsider making available the Heritage Incentive Fund which could assist in funding, maintenance and conservation projects.	No action recommended.
Heritage - Turramurra Library		Should be considered for heritage listing as it is one of the few remaining examples of late 20^th century regional (Sydney School) architecture located in Turramurra Town Centre.		Turramurra Library has not been assessed for its heritage significance. Correspondence from the Heritage Council, as per the s.56 consultation, notes that items that have not been the subject of a heritage assessment should not be included in schedule 5. It is recommended that Council take a strategic approach to future heritage listing which would involve an LGA wide heritage review. The review could include those places previously recommended for listing but which do not possess a thorough independent heritage assessment, and those places not previously identified but now nominated by the community.	No amendment recommended.
Turramurra Avenue Carpark Meals on Wheels/Senior Citizens		Should be considered for heritage listing, but should be preserved and retain R2 zoning if not recommended for listing.		Turramurra Avenue carpark Meals on Wheels/Senior Citizens not been assessed for its heritage significance. See above.	No action recommended.
Open space – proposed Cameron Park extension		The extension of Cameron Park is supported. Would like to see toilets included. Request attention to pedestrian safety in Turramurra Avenue especially speed vs children.		Support noted. The survey of local people for input into the desired facilities and features is now complete and a design is under draft. This comment should be noted in conjunction with the survey results for Cameron Park.	No action recommended.
Open space – new park on Gilroy road		Council has acquired 2-8 Gilroy Road to expand Cameron park. Allowing 5 storey development to the north of this proposed park will overshadow the park and affect its amenity.		The park is of sufficient size to retain large areas with access to sunlight when and if the construction of residential flat building occurs to the north.	No action recommended.
Heritage - Gilroy and Eastern Roads		5 storey development at this location will destroy the village character of Turramurra, particularly as the properties are part of the heritage significant Gilroy Estate and their development will not conserve Sydney’s cultural heritage. Gilroy and Eastern Roads should be zoned R2.		The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. The draft LEP proposes to translate of the existing 2(d3) zoning to R4 which is consistent with the s 117 Directions. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements i.e. a down zoning.	No action recommended.
Proposed Open Space - Duff Street		Poorly placed site for a park – steep slope. Better to have it located on top of the ridgeline.		In principle parks are generally best located on flat land however in the case of the western side of Turramurra there is very little flat land available except next to the Pacific Highway which is also not a good location for an new park While the location is sloping it does not preclude the use for open space. Using terraces the park can easily be designed with flat areas. Sloping sites can also offer more opportunity for adventure play for children.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – Land use zones – 19 and 21 Duff Street		Submission on behalf of one owner. Rezoning these sites from 2(c2) to E4 is inconsistent with s117 -3.1 -5(b) as it reduces the permissible residential density of the land. The main justification given for this is a claim that the land includes dense stands of threatened ecological communities. This is inaccurate and misleading: · Proposed increase in minimum lot size does not reflect existing size of properties – about 890m^2. It serves no useful purpose; · The threatened ecological communities are not spread uniformly across them or even on the undeveloped portions – they are clustered towards their rear end in the valley running off the highway; · Existing and future development would likely occur adjacent to or over existing footprints, away from these ecological communities; · Given long narrow shape of the properties and location of existing development it is unlikely that the E4 zoning would provide any further enhancement than the R2 zone; · R2 would not result in a broader range of uses, as claimed; and · Bushfire is not a constraint, as claimed, as these lands are only in a buffer zone to a small isolated risk area: o Works are already underway to subdivide 19 and 21 from 2 to 3 lots (DA0874/06 and MOD0129/11) o The consultant’s bushfire assessment (copy provided) for the site state that the site does not contain bushfire prone vegetation and that the Bushfire prone lands map should be modified accordingly.		The Planning Proposal accompanying the draft LEP indentifies areas of inconsistency with section 117 directions. The Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has determined that the inconsistencies with these directions have been sufficiently justified to enable public exhibition. However, Council is also required to give detailed consideration to submissions. In practical terms there is no inconsistency with the s117 directions: · As acknowledged by the objector, the minimum subdivision size will have no impact on this site · The FSR for the new sites as approved by the subdivision will be the same as for R2 sites. The sites do contain a threatened ecological community and form part of a link between the vegetated areas in the Pacific Highway/Lamond Drive area and the Granny Springs Reserve, as well as linking the community to the remnants in the proposed new park on the corner of Duff, Holmes and Allen Streets. The lack of bushfire prone vegetation does not mean that this is not an important linkage. The E4 zone, while still providing for residential development, includes specific objectives in relation to the protection of the ecological values of the site, which will support the protection of these areas. While the applicant may not currently be seeking to develop the sites for non dwelling uses, the range of uses permitted under E4 are more restrictive than R2, to support these objectives over the long term.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 19 and 21 Duff Street		This portion of Duff Street is less than 10 minutes walk to the station. The long narrow sites make them suitable for townhouse development, and would provide a transition from the high density areas. An R3 zoning for these sites, and perhaps the opposite side of the street would increase housing density while retaining some of the bush character, reducing pressure for higher levels of density on the highway ridge.		These sites contain areas of Blue Gum High Forest, a threatened ecological community. Townhouse development results in quite extensive site coverage, inconsistent with limiting building footprint size to protect this community. The site is part of a link in the vegetation community from the Pacific Highway through to Granny Springs Reserve, and the E4 –Environmental Living Zone is more appropriate.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity – 1258-1274 Pacific Highway		Draft Centres LEP has not given same consideration as LEP 212 did in its rezoning of land for multi-unit development where it took into account the impacts of zoning on BGHF. Rezoning should be restricted to 1258-1274 Pacific Highway as this area has fewer trees, 80-100 years old.		Property: 1258 -1274 Pacific Highway is not within the boundaries of the Local Centres LEP. There are a number of areas within the boundaries of the centres that have not been up-zoned, (and in some cases have been zoned E4 - environmental living) to protect key ecological communities.	No action recommended.
Building height- 1440-1444 Pacific Highway	7 storey residential is too out of character for the area. It will result in overshadowing on the western side of the ridge- resulting in health issues associated with dampness e.g. asthma, and devaluing these properties. Driving along the highway 3 or 4 storey development sits best.		The proposed 7 storey (23.5m) residential development in Turramurra is at the corner of the Pacific Highway and Lamond Drive. Construction has commenced for a residential flat building on this site. The DA was approved with the 5 storey controls in place and the maximum height could be amended accordingly. There is no longer any planning reason for these sites to have a maximum building height of 23.5 metres, it can be amended to 17.5 metres (5 storeys).		That the maximum building height for property 1440, 1444, 1444A Pacific Highway known as 1 Lamond Drive, Turramurra be amended to 17.5 metres.
Building height- 1440-1444, Pacific Highway		7 storeys is too high for the western side of the highway. It will cast shadows and overlook homes and gardens for a large part of the day, and reduce their property values. It also contains Blue Gum High Forest. No-one has thought about those disadvantaged -3 storeys is high enough.		The proposed 7 storey (23.5m) residential development in Turramurra is at the corner of the Pacific Highway and Lamond Drive. Construction has commenced for a residential flat building on this site. The DA was approved with the 5 storey controls in place and the maximum height could be amended accordingly. There is no longer any planning reason for these sites to have a maximum building height of 23.5 metres	Recommendation: See above
LEP matters –1444B-1456A Pacific Highway		There are 2 sets of planning controls for the one site. No precedent exists in NSW to have 2 sets of controls and if gazetted is likely to lead to a challenge in the Land and Environment Court – a poor outcome. The controls from the previous plan should be reinstated.		It is noted that the current LEP provisions are unworkable with height and FSR controls split across lots. In order to overcome the complication of splitting FSR and height controls across a site, the preferred approach is to provide an overall height limit of 23.5 metres (7 storeys) and an FSR of 1.3:1 across the subject sites. This approach was previously recommended in the Officers Report for OMC 3^rd April 2012	That the maximum FSR for properties 1444B-1456A Pacific Highway, Turramurra be amended to 1.3:1, the maximum building height to 23.5 metres.
Development feasibility –1444B-1456A Pacific Highway		Submissions from a number of landowners within this area. Submissions seek an R4 zone, height of 23.7m (7 storeys) FSR of 1.3:1, a minimum lot size of 5000m^2, and a biodiversity area. Submissions note that this was the Officer’s recommendation as proposed after rigorous assessment by Council’s professional officers and which incorporated the views of the Turramurra community. The staff proposal of an increased height to 7 storeys allowed reduced building footprints to encourage protection of the ecologically sensitive areas and to avoid the steepest parts of the site. The minimum lot size encouraged amalgamations to allow for the footprints to go in less constrained areas. Submissions raise concerns over lack of transparency and open processes in decision making and consultation. Submission calls upon Councillors to justify their decision at OMC of 3April 2012 which was to reduce the building heights and FSRs on the subject sites from 7 storeys to 3/5 storeys and 1.3:1 to 1.3:1/0.85:1. Submission claims this was done without regard to Council’s economic feasibility analysis. Other reasons given for objections · economic viability and loss of value; · site characteristics; · inconsistency with 117 directions; · interface issues; · process issues; · Lost financial costs from DA; · Conflicts with sensible professional staff recommendations, supporting studies and planning objectives; · Creates an interface conflict of 7 storeys within 6m of our boundary down to 3 storeys; · Devalues our property (real estate estimate of 30%); · Site already has significant consolidation and building constraints – biodiversity significance, minimum lot size of 5,000m^2; · Have been living with R4 zoning for 8 years, attempts to change zoning, under option 3 times by developers who could not get DAs approved due to onerous restrictions and Council attitude; · Unwilling to carry out improvements when development could occur at any time; · Approved DA next door to 5 storey, with demolition due to start next week – Draft LEP now provides for 7 storeys, while reducing our property to 3 storeys - far removed from basic planning principles; · Proposed height and FSR and need for consolidation make redevelopment uneconomical, and with a house that is un-sellable. This is supported by the feasibility study undertaken for Council in 2009, which assessed a number of scenarios and concluded that an FSR of 1.3:1 was needed to provide for redevelopment. Urge council to review this document; and · Request councillors visit site to see the implications of the proposed down-zoning.		The sites are currently zoned under the KPSO 2(d3) with an FSR of 1.3:1 and 17.5 metre building height. Not all the sites have not down zoned, 1446, 1450 and 1452 have maintained the same development standards while the remaining sites are proposed to be down zoned over between half and all the site area. The Planning Proposal accompanying the draft LEP indentifies areas of inconsistency with section 117 directions. The Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has determined that the inconsistencies with these directions have been sufficiently justified to enable public exhibition. However, Council is also required to give detailed consideration to submissions and the details of the viability of future development. Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the draft LEP provisions to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3-5 storey apartment buildings with an FSR of 1.0:1 across the subject site and has determined that it is viable under current market conditions and therefore it is likely to be redeveloped. There are other matters to consider on this site: · the exhibited draft LEP provisions are unworkable with height and FSR controls split across lots. · There is a current DA over a section of the subject site for a development of 5 storeys and FSR of 1.3:1 · The proposed down-zoning of the properties 3-15 Lamond Ave is under review in this report with a recommendation to return to the Officers recommendation of the 3^rd April 2012 · The uncertainty suffered by residents over the last 5-6 years In light of the above it is recommended that the building height and FSR on the subject sites be amended as per the Officers recommendations for OMC 3^rd April 2012	That the maximum FSR for properties 1444B-1456A Pacific Highway, Turramurra be amended to 1.3:1, the maximum building height to 23.5 metres. Recommendation: amend draft LEP in relation to property 1458 Pacific Highway - minimum lot size 5,000sqm - FSR 0.85:1 - building height 11.5 metres
Development feasibility –1444B-1456A Pacific Highway		Request Council take into consideration the review comments from DA0605/11 for 1444B 1446A, 1448, 1450, 1452 and 1454 Pacific Highway relating to the LEP.		This DA was lodged under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance and is currently being assessed. The assessment includes design issues specific to the proposal as well as issues common to this precinct, such as the protection of biodiversity and dealing with the topography of the site. Issues common to the precinct are considered in the recommendations for the draft LEP.	Refer to site specific recommendations above.
Development feasibility –1444B-1456A Pacific Highway		As resident owners of 1450 Pacific Highway, we. We are part of a current DA for this site, and we want to ensure that it can go ahead under the local centres plan. Believe the current lower density of 1444B-1454 Pacific Highway Turramurra is intended to thwart redevelopment. We are 92 and need to move into assisted living and need Council to stop the negative strategies that have led to emotional and financial distress. Emotional and financial distress from lack of certainty and lost development potential. Request that Council stop opposing proposed development of land.		As discussed elsewhere in this report, it is proposed that the model local clause 1.8A Savings provision relating to development applications be included in the LEP. This clause will allow existing undetermined DAs to be considered under the planning instrument in place when the application was lodged. However, it will also allow the new LEP to be given consideration in accordance with section 79C of the EP&A Act. This will provide more certainty to applicants while also ensuring the new instrument is considered in the assessment of applications.	That the model local clause 1.8A Savings provision relating to development applications be included in the LEP.
Land use zones - Lamond Drive to Finlay Road		The block between Lamond Drive and Finlay Road is zoned for 7 and 5 storey heights. These are LEP 194 sites that contain critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest. The sites should be down-zoned to protect the significant ecological value of the site and to reduce the impact on privacy and overshadowing of adjoining properties. LEP194 sites between Lamond Dr and Finlay Road should be down-zoned to E4, to protect Blue Gum High Forest.		These properties have been zoned 2(d3) since 2004. Residential flat buildings have been, or are currently being, constructed at 2-4 Finlay Rd, 1-3 Duff St and at 1440, 1444, 1444A Pacific Highway and 1 Lamond Drive. These developments were approved on the basis that the adjoining land would also be redeveloped for high density development. On this basis many of the dwellings and the bushland areas have been allowed to degrade. Down-zoning the other sites in the precinct would result in the continuing of adverse amenity impacts on the adjacent low density dwellings. A minimum lot size of 5,000 sqm has been set for the north-western sites in the precinct to ensure that building footprints can be provided in the least environmentally sensitive locations, allowing the denser steep areas of Blue Gum High Forest to the rear to be restored. This will also encourage new development to be well setback from the boundaries with the sites proposed as E4 Environmental Living, minimising potential interface impacts.	No action recommended.
Development viability – 3-15 Lamond Drive		Existing zoning should be maintained. Object to 3 storey height reduction. Existing buildings include 3.5 story buildings and there is no confirmation that 3 storey buildings will be economically viable. The proposal will result in economic loss for current owners of property, and make selling of properties difficult and relocation into other residential properties unaffordable.		Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3 storey apartment buildings with an FSR of 0.85:1 on the subject sites and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. Further analysis by JLL has determined that an FSR of 1.3:1 is required on the subject sites to achieve viable development under current market conditions. Given the uncertainty faced by residents over the last 5-6 years it is recommended that the development provisions recommended in the Officers Report to the OMC 3^rd April 2012 be re-instated, minimum lot size 5,000sqm, FSR 1.3:1 and 23.5 metres height	That the FSR of property 3-15 Lamond Drive, Turramurra be amended to 1.3:1, the maximum building height to 23.5 metres and that the properties be included in Area 1 edged blue, on the Minimum Lot Size map.
Development viability - 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Lamond Drive		Submission prepared by owners of 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Lamond Drive. Submission objects to the reduction in building height proposed in the draft LEP to 11.5 metres (compared to 17.5 metres under LEP 194). Submission objects to the reduction in FSR proposed in the draft LEP to 0.85:1 (compared to 1.3:1 under LEP 194). Reasons for objection: - development viability - existing houses higher than 11.5 metres - adequate lot depth - existing buildings and driveways have large footprints - adjoining 6 storey developments Submission requests the draft LEP be amended to show these subject sites with the following provisions: - minimum lot size 5,000sqm - FSR 1.3:1 - Building height 23.5 metres		Further analysis by JLL has determined that an FSR of 1.3:1 is required on the subject sites to achieve not viable development under current market conditions. Further analysis by JLL has determined that an FSR of 1.3:1 is required on the subject sites to achieve viable development under current market conditions. Given the uncertainty faced by residents over the last 5-6 years it is recommended that the development provisions recommended in the Officers Report to the OMC 3^rd April 2012 be re-instated	That the FSR of property 3-15 Lamond Drive, Turramurra be amended to 1.3:1, the maximum building height to 23.5 metres and that the properties be included in Area 1 edged blue, on the Minimum Lot Size map.
Development viability – 3-15 Lamond Drive		Reduction of height will not enable any street presence. If 3 storeys is to be maintained the site would require fill to enable buildings to have a street presence. This would have the same impact as a taller building on sites further down the slope.		The proposed maximum building height for these properties is proposed to be increased to 7 storeys. Refer discussion above	No action recommended.
Riparian lands – 14 Denman Parade Turramurra		The riparian mapping should reflect Category 3a for the lower reach on this site and not be included for the ‘upper reach’ which is only fed by stormwater outlets and has no real channel definition: · Department of Lands topographic map (assume reference to 1:2500) does not identify a watercourse; · Poorly defined channel form · Significant channel modification (physical and ecological); · If the degraded ecological function were considered, as recommended by the Sydney CMA, the water course would be considered category 3a; · Category 3a riparian lands more appropriate for most of the site; · The categorisation will prevent subdivision of the site, which would be needed to fund restoration; · The riparian categories do not consider ecosystem function of the riparian lands appropriately; and · Comparison with other reaches in the area indicates that a watercourse is not present on the subject site and the mapping should be amended. · This watercourse is compared to one running down Duff Street, which is Category 3a. It is considered that the Duff Street watercourse is not a watercourse at all.		If a watercourse is not identified on the topographic map that does not mean it is not a watercourse. A site inspection was undertaken to confirm mapping in relation to the site: · Definite valley/gully form present on site which has undergone significant channel modification; · The majority the channels remain in a more natural state (limited concrete, brick lining) with within channel, extensive bank and riparian vegetation present (although degraded by weeds); · There is no evidence of significant piping or culverts to indicate that the category 3a classification is more appropriate; · Fluvial features appear present along all sections of the site; · The objector’s consultant has described the watercourse as follows: o “the drainage line onsite is has a well defined watercourse albeit in a highly modified state, which carries surface runoff after a rainfall event has ceased and is fed by 2 upper stormwater discharges and 3 surface run off diversion channel. There was also evidence of groundwater seepage feeding the lower reach on site.”; and o also identified a frog that lives in the water on site. The consultant’s description fits a category 3 watercourse. This is also consistent with Office of Water guidelines, as acknowledged by the consultant. · Identification of Riparian zones to stormwater outlets present within the drainage line depression is a consistent characteristic of the mapping across the LGA. Flow paths and channels have been observed on site and as such the land should be considered as riparian land; · The degraded extent of the watercourse is the reason that the reach is category 3 rather than category 2; · The identification of the riparian lands as category 3 does not of itself, prohibit any form of development. The map relates to riparian provisions which outline matters of consideration for development on these sites. Final appropriate buffers are considered through the development application process; · The DCP will provide guidance for determining the most appropriate identification of channel location and width, and the appropriate setbacks to any development; · The DCP will also outline the most appropriate management objectives for each of the categories and how the ecological processes and ecosystem function of riparian zones should be considered. This will be based on the riparian policy objectives developed in co-operation with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural resources in 2004; · It is not clear how the comparison of other watercourses in adjacent and downstream areas provide evidence that the subject site should not be mapped as category 3 riparian lands; and · The nearby reach (from Duff Street to Denman Street) has been identified according to the contours, vegetation and presence of an easement to drain water on 2 Holms Street (at the corner of Holms and Denman) which appears to be connected to the subject drainage line. The reach was categorised as category 3 in the 2004 mapping and has already been revised to a category 3a reach, recognising that significant drainage alteration is likely to have occurred in its contributing catchment. Due to the age of development in this area it is unclear how this change may have occurred and further investigation may be needed to be undertaken at the development application stage. The mapping is in line with the rest of the mapping across the LGA, any site specific issues will be considered at the development assessment stage.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity – 14 Denman Parade		The biodiversity mapping should reflect the low biodiversity occurring over 80% of the site. · The review should map only Blue Gum High Forest occurring near the northern boundary; and several constituent BGHF trees on the southern watercourse alignment near Denman Street. Where site inspections are conducted to review the mapping, any future DA assessment will rely on the results of that inspection, so it needs to be accurate to the site scale.		As a result of the submission to the draft biodiversity, riparian and heritage LEP, a minor change was already incorporated to the biodiversity mapping in the local centres LEP. The biodiversity mapping is not limited only to the BGHF on the site. It includes vegetation located within a Category 3 riparian area, providing connectivity and some foraging and potentially habitat for species that use these moister areas. While the consultant disputes the habitat connectivity, it is clear that the BGHF at the rear of the lot is connected through the riparian area and is connected to a very large area of BGHF uphill, and through to Granny Springs Reserve. Even the exotic species along the creek provide some linkage for species that use riparian areas, and it is for this reason that these areas are consistently identified as part of the biodiversity mapping process. As the consultant admits, consistency is critical. The biodiversity mapping has been done for strategic purposes, at a scale of 1:2000. It will not substitute for a detailed flora and fauna assessment at DA stage. Rather, it is a trigger for the consideration of certain matters. No further change is required to the mapping. No change is recommended to this part of the biodiversity mapping. It should also be noted that part of the biodiversity map on this site includes the buffer area (identified as category 4 in the background study). The considerations in this area will not be as limiting as those where canopy is present. The different requirements for the different categories will be outlined in the DCP.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 34 Denman Street		Submission requests that the subject property (as well as 8 Finlay Street and 14, 16A 20, 22, 28 Denman Street) be zoned R2 rather than E4 as proposed in the draft LEP. The reasons given for the requested change are: - reduction in FSR from 0.3:1 to 0.2:1 - the properties are not bush fire prone - limitation on additional uses will limit redevelopment and restoration of BGHF		These sites contain dense stands of a threatened ecological community, Blue Gum High Forest. Further, they link the steep Blue Gum High Forest areas in the Pacific Highway/Lamond Drive area through to the Granny Springs Reserve, as well as linking the vegetation community to the remnants in the proposed new park on the corner of Duff, Holmes and Allen Streets. Whether or not the land is bushfire prone does not mean that this is not an important linkage. The E4 zone, while still providing for residential development, includes specific objectives in relation to the protection of the ecological values of the site, which will support the protection of these areas. The range of uses permitted under E4 do not include uses that are likely to require large footprints providing support for these objectives over the long term. Nevertheless, some redevelopment potential is provided through the inclusion of uses such as bed and breakfast and secondary dwellings, to provide encouragement for some restoration of the Blue Gum High Forest in this area. The maximum floor space ratio is subject to both Clause 4.4(2) and Clause 4.4 (2C). Cl 4.4(2C) provides for higher FSRs on smaller sites on a sliding scale. Large sites can still support quite substantial development.	No action recommended.
Land use zones and building height - 1318-1322 Pacific Highway (Northhaven Retirement Village)		Submission prepared on behalf of property owners, Uniting Care Ageing, by planning consultant. Submission claims that an R3 zone does not reflect the level of development currently on the site. Submission compares the draft LEP to the planning controls for the subject site in the now invalid Town Centres LEP. Requests that Council amend the draft LEP to provide the following planning controls for the subject site: - R4 High Density - 17.5 metres building height - FSR 1.3:1		The submission raises a valid objection. There has been an error when translating the KPSO provisions. The site is currently zoned Residential 2(e) which translates to an R4 zone. The draft LEP shows an R3 zone. In relation to density and height, the site has clearly developed at a considerably higher density than allowed under the KPSO. Current building heights are over 4 storeys at rear of the site. The draft LEP has allocated LEP provisions to the site consistent with the KPSO i.e. building height 11.5 metres and FSR 0.5:1. These provisions do not reflect what is currently built.	That the property 1318-1322 Pacific Highway, Turramurra (Northhaven Retirement Village) be zoned R4 (High Density Residential), the maximum FSR amended to 1.3:1 and the maximum building height to 17.5 metres.
Building height - Rohini Street		A 2 storey zoning of Rohini Street is supported.		Support for exhibited plan noted.	No action recommended. .
Building heights		5-storey development of mixed commercial and shop-top housing on the Franklins site, Ray and William Street car parks, Coles site, Pacific Hwy shops, and Pacific Hwy shops adjoining Rohini Street is excessive and out of scale.		While the land has LEP provisions that allow 5 storey buildings this does not necessarily mean that such development will inevitably occur As explained in the Officers report to OMC 3^rd April 2012 and reinforced by further feasibility assessment, this height and the associated FSR do not represent a viable level that would encourage redevelopment.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – William and Ray Street area		Proposed 5 storey height on entire length of William Street, Forbes Lane, and proposed 3 storey height on Gilroy Lane: Designated height and FSR would encourage disposal and development of these important public facilities, which were not disclosed in the draft LEP, so inappropriate to zone for increased heights.		The making of an LEP does not impose any obligation upon Council to dispose of or redevelop its public facilities, assets or landholdings. How Council deals with its facilities and assets is governed by the processes of the Local Government Act. Before Council can sell land it must be classified operational. If it is currently classified community then reclassification must occur through an open and transparent LEP process, including a public hearing. This draft LEP will not reclassify any land.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – William and Ray Street area		Current council may have no intention to develop roads, but future ones may.		Future Council’s decisions on the management of public assets and land will be subject to the same transparent and democratic processes as apply to the current Council.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – William and Ray Street area		William Street and Gilroy Lane should not have a height on Height of Building map. Section of William Street along railway garden should remain without height to ensure it stays as an access road from railway to open air parking or any town square or park on the Ray/William Street carparks.		Leaving a section of road or land off the Height of Buildings Map would not prevent it from being redeveloped. Rather, it would mean that future development of that land would have no height restrictions, which would be undesirable	No action recommended.
Open Space and community facilities - Ray Street precinct		In Turramurra, adjacent to the Sydney Ancher designed library, the Ray Street car park should become a federation style public open space, side by side with railway corridor green space – a biolink along the railway. This biolink should be connected with pocket parks along its length to protect urban wildlife. The area should not be zoned for development to 2-5 storeys. The library should be expanded to retain some semblance of the original Turramurra station precinct.		The LEP will not prevent Council from developing a public square or park on the Ray Street car park or expanding the existing library building. While Council owned land remains in Council ownership the future design and development decisions remain in Council’s hands and is subject to the open and transparent processes of the Local Government Act. What the LEP will do is increase the opportunities for how the Council can manage or use the public facilities and land.	No action recommended.
Building heights – 1 Ray Street (Coles site)		Coles has said that they don’t want to extend beyond its DA approval, just to be able to extend parking below the current car park. At the Turramurra community workshop the Coles representative indicated they had no intention to develop more than 3 storeys – no need to zone for 5 storeys.		This claim is not supported Coles have made a submission seeking additional height and FSR for the site. See submission summary and comments below.	No action recommended.
Development viability – 1 Ray Street (Coles)		Submission prepared by land owner. Lack in planning rationale in the reduction of potential for the site compared to KLEP 2010. There has been a 28% reduction in FSR and 33% reduction in maximum height. Site presents good opportunity to redevelop consistent with the objectives metro strategy & subregional plan by increasing people living in centres with access to existing transport infrastructure. Key site characteristic to support development include: significant size (3600sqm; single ownership; within 50m of station; good vehicle and pedestrian access; Separation from sensitive land uses; generally underdeveloped; ability to consolidate with adjoining council land. Site should have FSR same as adjoining sites i.e. 2.5:1; height should be same as previous LEP. LEP should include provisions to encourage larger consolidated site with higher FSR & height – as is done in the R4 zone (cl4.4(2B). Similar clauses in other SI LEPs: Mosman 2012; Auburn 2010; Parramatta 2007; draft Willoughby 2012.		The submission is noted. Provisions in draft LEP do not provide enough incentive for land owners to amalgamate sites and thereby achieve a good quality development Council’s consultant Jones Lange LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 5 storey mixed use building with an FSR of 1.8:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable. It can therefore be assumed that the submission’s claim for 2.5:1 is reasonable and this is consistent with previous development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists and consistent with Officers recommendations to the OMC 3^rd April 2012. This submission confirms the voting patterns from the preliminary consultation undertaken by Council. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council between 2005 and 2009 confirm that the draft LEP will not be viable development on all the commercial properties within Turramurra Local Centre. Refer to recommendations on specific sites within this table. There are also a large number of submissions in this table from residents who support retail revitalisation and are willing to accept up to 8 storey buildings in order that change happens In light of the above it is recommended that the LEP provisions for this site be re-instated as per the Officers recommendation to the OMC of 3 April 2012. To allow for the future potential of an integrated redevelopment of the area providing for the full range of community infrastructure proposed in the Town Centres Public Domain Plan 2010 and the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010, and as supported at the Turramurra Community Summit it is recommended that Council’s land at 5 Ray Street and 1 Forbes Lane also have the LEP provisions re-instated as per the Officers recommendation to the OMC of 3 April 2012.	That the maximum FSR of properties 1 & 5 Ray Street and 1 Forbes Lane, Turramurra be amended to 2.5:1 and the maximum building height to 23.5 metres.
Open space – Ray Street and William Street area		Specific comments about Turramurra Town Centre. The car park and library on Ray/William Streets near Coles is currently Council owned land but has been zoned for 5 storey heights. No open space has been set aside. The Ray Street car park should remain as Community classified public land and be used to provide public open space.		The draft LEP zones two new areas of open space in Turramurra: - an area of 2,700sqm on the corner of Duff Street and Allan Avenue; - an area of 2,600sqm on the corner of Gilroy Road (as an expansion of Cameron Park)	No action recommended.
Turramurra – site specific – 26A Ku-ring-gai Avenue		The property owner requests that his property be zoned R3 as per the now invalid Town Centres LEP 2010. The owner also requests the adjoining properties to the north (11, 15, 17 Nulla Nulla Street) be also zoned R3. The submission notes that these properties were previously zoned R3 under the now invalid Town Centres LEP 2010. The reasons given are: - heritage - streetscape - restoration of riparian corridors - built form		The Land and Environment Court declared the Town Centres LEP invalid. As such, the starting point for the Local Centres LEP is the KPSO. The decision to zone this site and the neighbouring sites as R2 is to ensure the protection of the heritage conservation area and heritage items. A category 3a riparian area begins at this site, while a biodiversity corridor is identified for restoration through the site. An R3 zone would result in a much larger site coverage, which would have the potential to significantly reduce the opportunity for restoration of the biodiversity corridor. A principle applied across the LGA is that appropriate interface zoning be located next to heritage conservation areas to encourage sympathetic development in the vicinity of the conservation area. The preferred zoning is R2. It is not recommended to increase the zoning as the loss of amenity, in addition to the visual impact, would impact on the long term use and maintenance of places within the conservation area.	No action recommended.
Heritage - Ku-ring-gai Avenue HCA		It is preposterous to try to maintain a streetscape on one side of the street and ignore it on the other. On the “conservation” side development is constrained, while on the other side there is a modern house – the only one in the street.		Both sides of Ku-ring-gai Avenue are already included in a draft HCA under draft LEP 218.	No action recommended.
Interface planning – 3 Ku-ring-gai Avenue		Property should be up-zoned to R4 or R3 to be consistent with existing R4 and proposed R3 neighbouring the site. R3 can ameliorate the problems created for this site and can be designed in sympathy with adjacent properties. It is affected by overlooking from 5-7 storey apartments on the site adjacent to the rear boundary. Properties on the opposite side of the road has been zoned R3 and will have medium density housing. 3 Ku-ring-gai Avenue will sit looking onto medium density and is being looked onto by high density. This results in a devaluing of the property as its setting has been compromised.		It is acknowledged that overlooking from the rear apartments is an issue however an opportunity exists for boundary plantings to ameliorate loss of privacy. The proposed R3 is across the road and this is not considered to have high interface impact on 3 Ku-ring-gai Avenue. The R3 site has a maximum height of 11.5 metres which is 2 storeys with an attic. This will be no taller than a typical two storey heritage building in the street. The retention of the R2 zoning is consistent with the properties inclusion in the draft HCA and to discourage unsympathetic development in the vicinity of the neighbouring heritage item.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity – Stonex Lane/Franklins area		Request re-map biodiversity on this site. It is inaccurate as it covers bitumen car parks and buildings.		A site assessment shows that the mapping is accurate as the remnant canopy trees overhang the bitumen car parks and buildings. Note that the width of the biodiversity map also includes a buffer to the vegetation.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity - Stonex Lane/Franklins area		The redevelopment of the Franklins site will add to the damage already done by units at the top of Duff Street. It will carry megalitres of additional water into the riparian site. Man made flooding will wreck everything downstream of the site.		Clause 6.8 of the draft LEP includes a requirement for water sensitive urban design to be incorporated into new developments. This will be supplemented with more detailed provisions in relation to both water quality and quantity in the DCP to protect downstream ecosystems.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity - Granny Springs Reserve		Buffer or park needed between Franklins and Granny Springs Reserve to protect Blue Gum High Forest.		Council’s draft Local Centres DCP will provide details in relation to the interface with Granny Springs Reserve. Any future development would be required to provide a buffer due to bush fire hazard arising from Granny Springs Reserve.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity		Request protection of the Granny Springs Reserve area by providing a buffer park and a new cantilevered road.		Council’s draft Local Centres DCP will provide details in relation to the interface with Granny Springs Reserve. Any future development would be required to provide a buffer due to bush fire hazard arising from Granny Springs Reserve.	No action recommended.
Open Space - Stonex Lane/Franklins area		More land should be set aside in this area for public open space, to protect Granny Springs reserve from fragmentation.		The draft LEP zones two new areas of open space in Turramurra: - an area of 2,700sqm on the corner of Duff Street and Allan Avenue; - an area of 2,600sqm on the corner of Gilroy Road (as an expansion of Cameron Park)	No action recommended.
Biodiversity -Granny Springs Reserve		Granny Springs Reserve is not ‘Open Space’. It should not be portrayed as providing a recreation/play area, and should be zoned E5. E5 provides a higher level of protection than E2.		Granny Springs Reserve is zoned E2 – Environment Conservation. Permitted development is very restricted, and prohibits development such as dwellings. Ku-ring-gai’s use of the E2 zone is very similar to the use of the E5 zone as proposed by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is also important to note that there is no E5 zone available at this time as it is still only a proposed amendment to the Standard Instrument.	No action recommended.
Development viability – 1364 – 1396 Pacific Highway & 1A, 1 and 3 Kissing Point Road (Franklins Precinct)		Submission by land owner. Submission calls upon Councillors to justify their decision at OMC 3 April 2012 which was to reduce the building heights on the subject sites from 8 storeys to 5 storeys. Submission claims this was done without regard to Council’s economic feasibility analysis. Submission claims that under the draft LEP there will be no change in Turramurra.		Staff concur with submission. Provisions in draft LEP do not provide enough incentive for land owners to amalgamate sites and thereby achieve a good quality development. Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 5 storey mixed use development with an FSR of 2.0:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable. It can therefore be assumed that the submission’s claim is reasonable and this is consistent with advice from previous development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists. There are also a large number of submissions in this table from residents who support retail revitalisation and are willing to accept up to 8 storey buildings in order that change happens In light of the above it is recommended that the LEP provisions for this site be increased as per the Officers Recommendation to the OMC of 3 April 2012.	That the FSR of properties 1364-1396 Pacific Highway & 1A, 1 and 3 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Franklins precinct) be amended to 3.0:1 and the maximum building height to 26.5 metres.
Development viability – 1364 – 1396 Pacific Highway & 1A, 1 and 3 Kissing Point Road (Franklins Precinct)		Supports the 8 storeys and 2.5:1 FSR proposed for the precinct by planning staff. This is consistent with the KLEP 2010 and had 60% support at the community summit. Councillors’ resolution to reduce to 2.0:1 and 5 storeys is a 33% reduction. The decision was unfounded and not supported by feasibility assessment. These controls are not feasible for redevelopment. There was extensive feasibility undertaken by Hill PDA and Sphere in 2006 and 2008 to justify the KLEP 2010 controls. The controls will not encourage any development and shop top housing, therefore no housing choice. If the higher controls are not reinstated then Council should defer their decision until economic feasibilities can be undertaken to justify their decision. Multiple benefits to be gained from redevelopment of the site including: · Improved traffic flows and parking · Incorporation of a usable park off the highway · Improved shopping · Protection of adjoining BGHF. Site will be easy to amalgamate for redevelopment as the owners are already in agreement.		Staff concur with submission. Provisions in draft LEP do not provide enough incentive for land owners to amalgamate sites and thereby achieve a good quality development. Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 5 storey mixed use development with an FSR of 2.0:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable. It can therefore be assumed that the submission’s claim is reasonable and this is consistent with advice from previous development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists There are also a large number of submissions in this table from residents who support retail revitalisation and are willing to accept up to 8 storey buildings in order that change happens. In light of the above it is recommended that the LEP provisions for this site be increased as per the Officers Recommendation to the OMC of 3 April 2012. and consistent with Officers recommendations to the OMC 3^rd April 2012	That the FSR of properties 1364-1396 Pacific Highway & 1A, 1 and 3 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Franklins precinct) be amended to 3.0:1 and the maximum building height to 26.5 metres.
Building heights - Turramurra Avenue, Wonga Wonga Street, Gilroy Road and Eastern Road		All areas where 5 storey apartments are proposed to abut low density residential areas, some with heritage values and beautiful trees/gardens. These should only be 3 storey maximum.		There are no locations on Wonga Wonga Street where a maximum height of 5 storeys abuts a low density zone- it is separated by a street or an R3 Medium density zone. Between Eastern and Gilroy Roads, the R4 zone breaks down into 2 different maximum heights, with a 3 storey area between the 5 storey elements and the R2 low density zone. Between Gilroy Road and Turramurra Avenue the logical place to provide a transition to the low density zone is in line with the south side of Wonga Wonga and King Streets, to provide a consistent low density area to the north along Gilroy and Turramurra Avenues, in line with the boundaries discussed for Wonga Wonga and Eastern/Gilroy Roads. However, 20-28 Turramurra Avenue is already developed to 5 storeys under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance, so an R3 zone is no longer possible here. The development minimises the impact to the north, through a large setback to the low density residential area. It is envisaged that DCP controls will encourage a similar response on the Gilroy Avenue side. If an R3 zone were to be established to the north of this development, the streetscapes further along Gilroy and Turramurra Avenues would be affected.	No action recommended.
Land use zones and building heights – Gilroy Road and Eastern Road		Properties on top half of Gilroy Road and Eastern Road should not have been zoned for 5 storeys under LEP194, and should be down-zoned to 2 storeys. 5 storey zoning at Gilroy Road and Eastern Road should not proceed due to the area’s heritage significance and the negative impact on the aesthetic value of the Turramurra village.		LEP 194 was gazetted in 2004, so the high density residential zoning for the southern end of Gilroy and Eastern Roads has been in place for 8 years. There is no valid planning reason to seek the Minister’s approval for down-zoning of these sites. These sites are between 120 and 400m to Turramurra station and even closer to the shopping centre. The increase in population will help to support the economic life of Turramurra centre. The built form and design of the future buildings in relation to their context will be considered at the DA stage.	No action recommended.
Proposed road - between Gilroy Road and Turramurra Avenue		No provision for new road in LEP, which has been major concern to many because of potential impact on Turra Tots Child Care. Was in earlier LEP, so what is the status of this road?		The proposed road does not appear in the draft LEP as exhibited, having been removed by Council at its OCM of 3 April 2012, although it still features in Council’s policy documents (including Public Domain plan) and is necessary for the future traffic management of the area. Council has already acquired one of the lots for the new road. The Roads and Maritime Services has highlighted its critical role in improving connectivity to the proposed new traffic signals at the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Turramura Ave	That the LEP maps be amended to show SP2 zone apply to 15 Gilroy Rd
Heritage- 2 Nulla Nulla Street		2 Nulla Nulla Street, known as “Levenshulme” was the home of John Anderson, Challis Professor of Philosophy at Sydney University and is therefore culturally significant. Anderson is credited as one of Australia’s most original and inventive philosophical thinkers. Anderson drafted many of his most important writings at Levenshulme. The house and its gardens which remain mostly intact, are still aesthetically significant despite additions and other changes. The loss of the building would forever change the streetscape of Nulla Nulla Street. It is shown on map, but not on the heritage list. Please correct this.		2 Nulla Nulla Street is in schedule 5 of the draft LEP (see page 61 of the draft written instrument). The house has not been assessed for its social significance and was listed based upon its architectural and cultural significance and the fact at the time of assessment it was rare for being substantially intact. The house has undergone a substantial addition to the rear which has more than doubled the size of the original house. The Burra Charter states that: New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. and New work should be readily identifiable as such. To respect the cultural significance of a heritage place additions should be visually recessive and read as a secondary element to the heritage place. In addition, materials and surface finishes used on the addition should be complementary to the original fabric of the heritage place but should be discernible as new. This is not true of the addition at 2 Nulla Nulla Street, where the extension, with the exception of the fact it is so overscaled when compared to the heritage place, is not visually discernible as new. The materials, architectural detailing, wall alignment, brick work, and roofing are all replicated rather than interpreted.	That property 2 Nulla Nulla Street Turramurra be removed from Schedule 5 of the draft LEP and from the Heritage Map.
Heritage – Nulla Nulla Street and Wonga Wonga Street		The properties zoned 5 storeys on the corner of Wonga Wonga Street and Turramurra Avenue should be down-zoned from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to protect the significant, heritage listed property at 2 Nulla Nulla Street and the historic, large trees on the properties. 2 Nulla Nulla Street should remain heritage listed.		Under the KPSO this site is zoned 2(d3) with a height capability of 5 storeys. The zoning to R4 with a height of 17.5 is a direct translation of the KPSO. 2 Nulla Nulla Street is not considered to be of heritage significance as the additions do not respect the cultural significance of the place (see comments directly above)	No action recommended.
Traffic - Nulla Nulla Street		There are already traffic and access problems from development in this small narrow street potentially endangering children who use it as an extended play area-skateboarding and cycling. · Object to change in zoning to 3 storeys. There should be no further development in Nulla Nulla Street will result in more traffic impacts; and · If changed from the zoning at time of purchase, compensation should apply to our loss of property value.		Nulla Nulla St is a no through road and therefore generally used for access only be the residents living in that street. Traffic levels after development would be consistent with a local road.	No action recommended.
Land use zones -Nulla Nulla Street		Don’t like high density, but acknowledge pressures. Would oppose any increase over the current level of development proposed for this street as it would result in detrimental impacts on ambience of unique street.		Support noted.	Support for plan as exhibited No action recommended.
Turramurra – site specific – 2 & 6 Nulla Nulla Street		Submission prepared on behalf of property owners by planning consultant. Submit that the current proposal in the draft LEP does not represent a sensible or coherent planning outcome for the owners. Argue that 2 Nulla Nulla (“Levenhulme”) is not worthy as listing as an item of local heritage. Argue that 2 and 6 would require amalgamation to create a developable land parcel. Request the draft LEP be amended as follows: - 2 Nulla Nulla Street be removed from Schedule 5 – heritage items; - That 2 and 6 be zoned R4 with anFSR of 1.3:1 and a height of 17.5 metres		Staff concur with submission. The house has undergone a substantial addition to the rear which has more than doubled the size of the original house. The Burra Charter states that: New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. and New work should be readily identifiable as such. To respect the cultural significance of a heritage place additions should be visually recessive and read as a secondary element to the heritage place. In addition, materials and surface finishes used on the addition should be complementary to the original fabric of the heritage place but should be discernible as new. This is not true of the addition at 2 Nulla Nulla Street, where the extension, with the exception of the fact it is so overscaled when compared to the heritage place, is not visually discernible as new. The materials, architectural detailing, wall alignment, brick work, and roofing are all replicated rather than interpreted.	That properties 2 & 6 Nulla Nulla Street, Turramurra be zoned R4 (High Density Residential), and that the maximum FSR be amended to 1.3:1 and the maximum building height to 17.5 metres.
Heritage – 2 Nulla Nulla Street		Property 2 Nulla Nulla Street is unjustifiably listed as a heritage item. The over-scaled extension which has converted a cottage into a mansion has diminished the cultural significance of this property. Request 2 Nulla Nulla Street be removed from the heritage schedule.		It is agreed that the form, scale and materials used in the extension to 2 Nulla Nulla Street has confused the legibility of the heritage fabric and had a detracting affect on the cultural significance of the item. The continued listing of properties whose cultural significance is questionable, promotes speculation to the legitimacy of properties that are rightfully listed.	That property 2 Nulla Nulla Street Turramurra be removed from Schedule 5 of the draft LEP and from the Heritage Map.
Land use zones – 2 and 6 Nulla Nulla Street		Properties 2 and 6 Nulla Street should be up-zoned from R3 to R4 to facilitate the visual continuity of apartments that could stretch from opposite Gilroy Lane to Wonga Wonga Street.		It is agreed that providing for high density on 2 Nulla Nulla Street would facilitate visual continuity of apartments along this stretch. Given the changes to the building which have affected its heritage value (discussed above) and its proximity to the centre, an R4 zone with a maximum building height of 17.5m is appropriate.	That properties 2 & 6 Nulla Nulla Street, Turramurra be zoned R4 (High Density Residential), and that the maximum FSR be amended to 1.3:1 and the maximum building height to 17.5 metres.
Land use zones – 1A Turramurra Avenue		Property 1A Turramurra Avenue was R4 under the 2010 plan, now a large part is proposed as R3. It should be R4 like nos.3 & 5 Turramurra Avenue: · Site suitable - adjacent to of high density development under construction – and close to station; · Impacts of change from 2010 plan: o Loss of opportunity – buyers we negotiated with have left; o Loss of market conditions; and o Delay to 1 owner who needs to move to a more suitable dwelling as a full time carer; and · R3 reduces viability.		Public interest matters identified in discussion below outweigh the desire to achieve the most efficient building form and the maximum number of dwellings on the site. The R3 zoning and associated FSR and height are appropriate in the circumstances.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 1A Turramurra Avenue Turramurra		Site proposed to be down-zoned to R3 medium density, under the draft LEP. It was zoned R4 under the previous town centres LEP and at that time the owner was in negotiations with 3 and 5 Turramurra Avenue to amalgamate the sites for redevelopment for high density. This has now stalled due to the invalidation of the LEP. Properties 3 and 5 are still proposed to be R4, but due to site size the FSR would be reduced from 1.3:1 down to 1:1. Submission includes attachment (Scheme A) “to demonstrate that this zoning [R4 on all 3 sites] will result in a suitable development outcome. “ Scheme A (58 units) shows 2 buildings of 4.6 storeys, with very large setback to adjoining residential at the rear, one 2 storey building, overall FSR of 1.3:1, Deep soil of 56%, 2 communal open space areas- access from Turramurra Avenue. Note that the R4 zoning encourages the amalgamation of these sites to provide good development outcomes. The R3 zoning on 1A Turramurra Ave discourages amalgamation and given the constraints of this site, will result in poorer development outcomes, as demonstrated by Scheme B. Constraints include: · Only one vehicular and pedestrian access point from Nulla Nulla Street, along a battleaxe entry – isolated with no street frontage; · Narrow width limiting design opportunities for townhouses; and · Shares boundary with 10 neighbouring properties, a mix of single residential, townhouses, public infrastructure services and a residential flat building under construction). Scheme B (21 units and 8 townhouses) shows a concept for mixed R4 and R3 zonings, as proposed under the current plan – 3 buildings- one larger apartment block in the R4 zone (FSR 1:1, 2.6 storeys, deep soil 54%) with access from Turramurra Ave, and 2 narrow townhouse blocks with extensive driveways, poor amenity, with access from the battleaxe handle off Nulla Nulla Street, FSR of 0.65:1, 2.5 storeys and deep soil of 42%.The R4 proposal provides better urban amenity and higher dwelling yields. Given proximity to local shops and station, redevelopment should focus on optimal dwelling yield. With an estimated additional 24,500 people aged over 65, and an acknowledged increased need for smaller dwellings to accommodate single and 2 person households, the current dwelling mix in the LGA, with only 5% of dwellings as units, is no longer appropriate. Scheme A – 58 dwellings under R4 - would increase the number of dwellings suitable for this demographic, close to services and transport, as compared to Scheme B- 29 dwellings with 1A Turramurra Avenue at R3. It is noted that the proposed R3 zoning would allow amalgamation with 1 Nulla Nulla Street. However, this cannot be achieved as the owners have declined offers to participate in the amalgamation, just as they refused offers from 7,9 and 11, where the RFB is currently being constructed. It is assumed the objectives for R3 in this location are to provide a transition between zones and maintain character of Nulla Nulla Street, including reducing vehicular traffic. The objectives will not be achieved by R3 in this location, as 1 Nulla Nulla Street does not wish to amalgamate, so vehicular access to new development on the subject site from Nulla Nulla Street will need to be via the narrow existing access, whereas if the site were R4 and amalgamated with 3 and 5 Turramurra Avenue, all access would be from Turramurra Avenue. Further, scheme A shows that the 1.3:1 FSR could be achieved with the main part of the development facing Turramurra Avenue and a greater setback/lower height to the rear, providing a better transition than 3 storey townhouses on the narrow subject site. Accordingly, seek R4 zoning on 1A Turramurra Avenue, with an FSR of 1.3:1 and maximum building height of 17.5m. Alternately, seek an indication of whether a Planning proposal to rezone the land as suggested would be considered.		While it is agreed that a more efficient development could be achieved on 1A, 3 and 5 Turramurra Avenue as R4, as demonstrated by the concept plans submitted, there are factors that cannot be ignored: · While the owners of 1 Nulla Nulla Street may not wish to amalgamate at this time, the Local Centres Plan is expected to have a life of about 20 years. Over the longer term, the isolation of 1 Nulla Nulla Avenue is not a good planning outcome; · The R3 zone provides for a transition between the high density along Turramurra Avenue and the low density heritage conservation area along Ku-ring-gai Avenue. A five storey development on this site may also have an adverse impact on the heritage conservation area; · The concept plan for the R3 on 1A Turramurra Avenue includes a significant portion of the site covered in driveway, affecting the amenity of the site. However, Council’s DCP is expected to require basement parking for townhouse developments in most circumstances; · 1A Turramurra Avenue can also amalgamate with the proposed R3 sites to the east, which would also avoid both the access issues and the site width constraints identified by the submitter; · There is a need for more housing choice in Ku-ring-gai, such as that provided by townhouses or villas; · Council is meeting its dwelling targets without the need for residential flat buildings on this site. Public interest matters identified above outweigh the desire to achieve the most efficient building form and the maximum number of dwellings on the site; and · The R3 zoning and associated FSR and height are appropriate in the circumstances.	No action recommended.
Heritage - HCA		In Turramurra, only Laurel Avenue should be a HCA. There is no distinctive building style in King Street. Laurel Avenue does not have a visual or direct physical connection with King Street.		The architectural period of development is Federation and Inter-war. Of high contributory significance is St James Church, which is clearly visible from King Street. Property 12 King Street, despite its lack of presence on the street, has architectural and historical significance which contributes to the HCA as a whole.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 12 King Street Turramurra		If dual occupancy is permitted at 34 Eastern Road (1200m^2) it is appropriate to allow it at 12 King Street (2700m^2). This would not impact on the heritage item.		Dual occupancy under the Local Centres LEP is only permissible on existing nominated dual occupancy sites identified under LEP 194. Property 34 Eastern Road is one of the nominated sites; 12 King Street is not. This does not prevent 12 King Street from being subdivided under the subdivision provisions of the LEP, subject to Council approval.	No action recommended.
Biodiversity - King Street		The biodiversity map shows biodiversity at the end of King Street. There is only one gum tree that was damaged in a storm. It should be considered for removal so the kerb and guttering can be repaired.		A site inspection verified the presence of 2 angophora trees at the end of King Street with native and exotic understorey. The biodiversity mapping does not address the health of the trees. Any proposal for removal would need to consider the health of the tree as well as its significance.	No action recommended.
Building heights - Cherry Street		The height map permits 17.5m high buildings on Cherry Street, almost immediately adjacent o the HCA. This is inappropriate and will result in 7 storey buildings overlooking the HCA.		The FSR and the maximum building heights on these sites reflects the existing development. Any overlooking of the HCA would already be apparent.	No action recommended.
Interface planning - 17 Ku-ring-gai Avenue	Submission is concerned with the medium density zoning of residential properties on the western side of Womerah Street, Turramurra. Submission discusses the extent of the residents’ investment in restoring the property at no.17 Ku-ring-gai Avenue, Turramurra and is concerned that development of townhouses in the southern end of Womerah Street / Ku-ring-gai Avenue will devalue the adjacent properties. Additionally, the construction of townhouses and units in those areas means as a property owner of a heritage item will be disinclined to invest money into the maintaining property – which will ultimately result in the deterioration of the residence. As a consequence of this deterioration the heritage value of the property will also diminish and in time the community will lose a landmark property and left with an eyesore. 3 storey developments would result in overlooking impacts and an increase in cars – adding to the traffic and congestion of Womerah Street. There are already significant parking issues and traffic flow issues on this street.		It is agreed that development directly to the rear of 17 Ku-ring-gai Avenue will result in the loss of privacy. The overall guiding principle for zoning of interface sites directly adjacent heritage conservation areas has been R2. This property is also a highly significant heritage item, and the protection of amenity is important to ensuring the long term conservation of this building. The R3 sites to the rear of 17 Ku-ring-gai Avenue slope away from the house. It is recommended that only 8 Womerah Street would require the R2 zoning to protect the amenity of 17 Ku—ring-gai Avenue. Where possible, an R2 zoning has been applied on the interface of heritage conservation areas. Womerah Street is unlikely to experience significant traffic congestion issues as a result of new developments. New developments will be required to provide for their own parking needs on site, including visitor parking		That property 8 Womerah Street, Turramurra be zoned R2 (Low Density Residential), and that the maximum FSR be amended to 0.3:1 and the maximum building height to 9.5 metres.