60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 1 60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct In total, Council received 235 submissions

60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 1

60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct

In total, Council received 235 submissions concerning the proposed zoning

and development controls for the University/Pinnacle Precinct and Miranda

Public School. They include:

137 proforma submissions from the Central and North Miranda Precinct

Residents’ Association Inc (Miranda Residents’);

Seven unaffiliated proformas specific to this issue;

A petition from the ‘families and friends of Miranda Public School’ with 79

signatories; and

11 independent submissions, including a letter from Barry Collier MP, Member

for Miranda.

All but one submission objected to the proposed development controls for this

precinct.

Summary of Issues

The subject area is the block bounded by Kingsway to the north, the F6 road

reservation to the west, the Cronulla – Sutherland railway line to the south and

Miranda Public School to the east, traversed by the east-west running

Pinnacle Street and north south running University Road (see below).


Figure 1: Pinnacle Street/University Avenue Residential Flat Precinct and

Miranda Public School

The land is characterised predominantly by single dwellings and is somewhat

isolated from adjoining low density areas by the F6 reservation and the railway line.

It area is proposed to be rezoned from Zone 4 - Local Housing to R4 High Density

Residential to allow residential flat buildings at a height of 25m (7/8 storeys) and a

FSR of 2:1.

The proposed rezoning and development controls for the R4 High Density

Residential precinct remain unchanged since the first exhibition of DSSLEP2013 in

March 2012.


Figure 2: Zoning Map LEP3 Red = R4 High Density Residential

Figure 3: Maximum Building Height

T= 25m

O = 16m

In response to the previous two exhibitions of the draft plan, submissions

concerning this location covered a wide range of issues, including the rationale


for the rezoning and a range of potentially adverse amenity impacts of

development on neighbouring properties. One submission opposed the

rezoning because of potential impacts on Miranda Public School.

In contrast, the overwhelming majority of submissions in response to the

exhibition of LEP3 focus on the east side of University Road and the potential

adverse impacts on Miranda Public School arising from the proposed height

and FSR controls. A small number of submissions raised general issues

relating to the precinct as a whole, or raise concerns about an individual

property in the precinct. The 179 submissions received regarding this precinct

fall into the following three categories:

1. Potential overlooking and overshadowing of Miranda Public School (175

submissions)

The majority of submissions received on this issue were in the Miranda

Residents’ pro forma, followed by a petition from ‘Friends of Miranda School’.

Respondents assert that allowing buildings 25m high to be built along the

western boundary of Miranda Public School Miranda Public School (the east

side of University Road) will lead to the severe and unacceptable impacts of

overshadowing, and the loss of privacy and amenity. Specific comments

include the following:

Eight (8) levels of balconies and windows only 6 metres away from the

western boundary of the school site would look straight down over the

playground.

Residents will be to sit on their verandas and watch children in

kindergarten though to second class go to and from the toilets (toilet

entrances face potential new units).

Large numbers of people will be able to watch whilst vulnerable children use

the special needs therapy playground (to help manage challenging

behaviours including meltdowns) located directly beside the fence between

the school and the proposed development.

There is a risk of children being observed and photographed, and the images

distributed.

There is a long classroom block close to the western edge of the western

boundary with windows facing the future units. Residents of the units would

be able to look into the classrooms. The units would also overshadow the

classrooms.


Reducing the adverse impacts through modifications to building design such

and reduced height and setbacks will depend on the cooperation of the

developer and cannot be guaranteed.

Trees planted in the 6 metre rear setback [of units] would not be high enough

to prevent overlooking from all units, and their survival cannot be guaranteed.

Large canopy trees planted beside the special needs playground [to block the

view from the units] could be a safety risk due to overhanging branches.

The Department of School Education advises against allowing buildings

higher than 4 storeys adjacent to schools and that special measures need to

be implemented to protect children from unwanted observation from windows

and balconies.

Building height should be reduced 2 storeys (adjacent to the school) and FSR

reduced. On the opposite side of University Road (west side) building height

should be limited to 4 storeys [16m].

The 6 meter front, side and rear setbacks proposed in the Pinnacle Street

Precinct are inadequate and do not comply with either SEPP65 or SSDCP

setback requirements.

Staff and Councillors are requested to carry out an onsite inspection of the

school grounds to see the problems before LEP3 comes to Council for

consideration.

Concerns raised in LEP1, LEP2 and the Independent Review concerning

adverse effects on the school are not addressed in LEP3.

The one letter of support for this proposal contains the following comments:

The rezoning should be a minimum of 2.5:1 at 8 storeys;

The proposed developments will be located west of the school, which will

retain its sunshine throughout the school day; modern building designs will

allow only straight viewing from balconies due to setbacks - an example is

planter boxes; and

the school will certainly get an increase in numbers and should be able to

increase their staffing levels and remove combined grades.

One letter simply requests that the plan is gazetted ASAP so “those of us who live in

the re-zoned areas can move on with our lives.”


2. Objections to the rezoning of this precinct for R4 High Density Residential (6

submissions)

The rezoning represents overdevelopment of the area, which is better suited

for medium density development.

Risk of adverse impacts on residents caused by overshadowing, and the loss

of privacy and sunlight.

The plan is divisive because owners of new houses reluctant to sell are being

pitted against those in older homes who will yield windfall gains.

Council did not engage in sufficient consultation with residents.

Large scale loss of old trees and vegetation and a general adverse effect on

visual amenity.

Increased traffic on Kingsway. (Traffic movement in and out of Pinnacle Street

should the F6 extension be built has not been addressed.)

Five of these submissions were from Pinnacle Street/University Avenue residents.

Mr Collier’s submission supports these objections. It also questions the suitability of

the precinct having regard to the restrictions on access imposed by the F6 corridor

and that it is, in part, further than 800m from the railway station. Moreover, it asserts

that there is no need to rezone this location for high density residential, as the zoning

and development controls proposed for that part of Miranda north of the Kingsway

between Wandella Road and Clubb Crescent has the potential to provide an

abundant number of units, and the LEP already provides potential that far exceeds

the State housing target.

Mr. Collier further asserts that residents feel pressure to sell by developers, and that

Council has done nothing to dissuade residents from believing the proposed

rezoning is a ‘done deal’ or to discourage developers from pressurising reluctant

residents into selling. This creates a very divisive local atmosphere between those

who recently built new homes or renovated existing homes and those residents living

in older homes.

3. Individual properties affected by rezoning (1 submission)

A submission was received from a landowner in the proposed high residential

density precinct whose land is partially affected by the F6 freeway reservation,

thus of no interest to potential developers. The residents do not want to live


beside high density residential flats and want to understand what their options

are regarding compulsory acquisition of the land by the RMS. They feel that

they are the innocent victims of the change because they cannot sell up and

RMS appears reluctant to acquire their land.

Analysis of Issues

Potential overlooking and overshadowing of Miranda Public School

Miranda Public School is located at 658 Kingsway, on the interface between the

proposed R4 High Density Residential zone and the SP2 Educational Establishment

zone. The site (Lot 1 DP640723) is transverse by Sylva Avenue, a cul de sac. The

area of interest with regard to submissions is that part of the school located west of

Sylva Avenue, bounded by the properties on the east side of University Road (660,

662, 664 Kingsway and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 University Road).

Figure 4: Aerial view of east side of University Road and Miranda Public School

Miranda Public School outlined in blue.

With regard to the potential for overlooking of the school site, the concerns of

parents, teachers and others are acknowledged. However, fear of inappropriate

behaviour is not a matter that can be given significant planning weight. The Land and

Environment Court has previously considered similar matters and determined that,

“…unfounded fears of impacts on amenity (however widespread) cannot be material

to planning assessment “(Milne v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 66). It

is considered that good design can facilitate appropriate passive surveillance, which

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2007/66.html


can in turn reduce the potential for and the incidence of crime and inappropriate

behaviour.

It must be noted that a large section of the school playground located on the east

side of Sylva Avenue is currently significantly overlooked from the top of the (public)

Westfield carpark accessed via Wandella Road. In addition, an existing two storey

residential dwelling adjacent to the west of the school site, on Kingsway, directly

overlook a large school play area on the northwest side of the school. In this case,

the house, located in Zone 4 – Local Housing, is built to a 0.9m side setback, with a

second storey setback of 1.5m.

Residential flat development results in greater side and rear setbacks than smaller

scale development, thus any residential flat development on University Road (and

along this section of Kingsway) would be subject to greater rear setback controls.

Greater setbacks allow for better landscaping and screen planting. These increased

setbacks allow developments to achieve trees large scale trees and screening

vegetation. The greater setbacks for residential flat development are used to offset

the potential impacts of greater permissible height, in particular to ameliorate the

effects of overshadowing and overlooking. However, even with sensitive

development there will be impacts on existing development as the scale of the

precinct changes. Given that Miranda is the primary retail and employment centre in

Sutherland Shire and that it is serviced by good public transport, increasing the

residential capacity of the centre is consistent with good planning practice. It is

unreasonable to expect a school to be provided with a low density context when it is

in a major centre and a main road.

Council is yet to adopt detailed development controls for the precinct. Only the height

and density (Floor Space Ratio) are set by the draft SSLEP2013. A policy report on

draft development controls for the precinct was considered by Council on the 15th

April 2014 (DAP111-14). The draft preferred building forms presented indicated large

lot amalgamations, varying heights across a site and a 9m rear setback to the school

in order to provide opportunities to preserve solar access and the amenity of

adjacent properties. Shadow diagrams have been prepared for different

amalgamation patterns. The school gets its primary solar access to the north which

is unaffected by the proposed High Density Residential Flat zone. Overshadowing to

the east will not impact the site during school hours for most of the school year.


Figure 5: University Road/Miranda Public School boundary

The yellow vertical line parallel to back boundary shows the location of the proposed 9m rear

setback for new residential flat development in this location. It is indicative only.

All Development Applications are the subject of a detailed assessment. This

assessment will take into account possible overshadowing and overlooking impacts

on adjoining properties and the public domain in order to ensure reasonable

outcomes are achieved.

The Independent Review did not specifically address this issue because they did not

received written or oral submissions on the matter. They did agree that, in general,

the proposed increases in height and density in and around the Miranda Centre are

consistent with good planning practice (p. 86).

It is considered that the Pinnacle Street Precinct is an appropriate location for a high

density zone being adjacent to a large town centre. The school community’s concern

in relation to overlooking in understandable, but it is not a valid reason to exclude

high density development. Schools in an urban context cannot reasonably expect

that there will be no increase in density in surrounding neighbourhoods. The issues

raised in submissions have been adequately addressed and do not justify a change

to the plan.


Response to Issue

The issues raised in submissions do not warrant changes to the plan.

General comments concerning the proposed R4 High Density Residential Precinct

With respect to the justification for the rezoning of this precinct for high density

residential development, it is considered that these issues are not new and have

been adequately addressed in the previous two submissions reports (in response to

LEP1 and LEP2). The planning rationale for this rezoning is summarised below.

The new LEP is trying to ensure that 10,100 dwellings are actually built by 2031.

This number is a target not a ceiling. The LEP provides greater potential than this to

allow for take up rates. The Independent Review concluded that “the level of

rezoning to meet the housing targets for Sutherland is appropriate” (p.31).

The argument that the proposed development standards are inappropriate in the

local context ignores the future character and scale of the Miranda centre. The 25m

height proposed in the Pinnacle Street Precinct is a stepping down from the 30m

height limit in the commercial core. In time the precinct will read as part of the centre.

The fact that it will be edged by the F6 corridor and the railway line supports the

concept of the area being part of the centre. The potential impact of the F6 has been

carefully considered in arriving at the proposed plan. It does not compromise traffic

of pedestrian safety.

Part of the precinct is further than 800m from the railway station. However, this is not

an absolute distance but should be interpreted as a guide to the suitability of an

area. Clearly residents in this location have good access to all services.

While it is understood that these objections are fundamentally related to the

development controls set out in the new LEP, it is considered that many of these

issues can be addressed by good design in accordance with in the new DCP. A

policy report on draft development controls for the precinct was considered by

Council on the 15th April 2014 (DAP111-14). It included a series of building envelope

plans considering different amalgamation patterns. This will form the basis of the

draft DCP provisions.

The aim in working out the building envelope plans was to devise a series of building

forms to accommodate residential flats which such that they can achieve an FSR of

2:1 with maximum height 25m, and:

Incorporate the standards in SEPP65, including allowing adequate solar

access and building separation distances to allow privacy for all flats in each

development site.

Ensure no vehicle access is provided off the Kingsway.

Allow for underground car parking.


Provide potential for a good streetscape.

Reduce scale adjacent to lower density multi dwelling developments.

Achieve 30% deep soil landscaped area.

The proposed building envelope plan is copied below:

The draft DCP will be on public exhibition soon and is expected to be in force in

tandem with the gazettal of the new LEP.

Response to Issue

In summary, the proposed zoning and controls for this location have not changed

over the course of the three exhibitions. These concerns raised in these submissions

are not new and are considered to have been reviewed in depth over the course of

the previous submission reports and by the Independent Review. There appears to

be no compelling justification to amend the proposed controls

Individual properties affected by the rezoning

A submission was received by the owners of a property with approximately 75% of

the lot affected by the F6 corridor and identified for acquisition. The extent of the

reservation is such that the land is of little value to a future developer of adjoining

land. A developer would not gain a sufficient yield from the land to justify its


purchase at market value. As such it has not been included in the acquisition

patterns for the residential flat zone.

Figure 6: Split zoned properties affected by the F6 Corridor

Subject property outlined in blue

The owners have apparently approached the RMS, which is reluctant to purchase

the property at this point in time. They have expressed their dismay about this

situation and requested information about legal options available to them under the

Just Terms Compensation Act.

The Just Terms Compensation Act makes provision for owner-initiated acquisition of

reserved land, where they satisfy the hardship requirements provision in that Act.

Under the Act, an owner of land suffers hardship if they are unable to sell the land, or

are unable to sell the land at its market value; and it has become necessary for the

owner to sell all or any part of the land without delay for pressing personal, domestic

or social reasons, or in order to avoid the loss of (or a substantial reduction in) the

owner’s income.

Council acknowledges the difficulty of the situation and has provided what

information it can, and it is up to the owners to obtain their own legal advice.

However, the property was knowingly purchased subject to this reservation.

Ultimately this is a matter between the owners and the RMS.


Response to Issue

The issues raised are clearly resulting in personal distress to the affected property

owners however; this is not a consequence of the plan but the result of the freeway

reservation. There are no issues raised that warrant changes to the plan.

Documents

60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 1 60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct In total, Council received 235 submissions