Questions and Answers

Under Section 3.32 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”), Council was the planning proposal authority for the proposed GRLEP 2020. The Planning Proposal was reported to Council’s Environment and Planning Committee on 11 November 2019 and subsequently to Council at its meeting on 25 November 2019. 

However, Council was unable to form a quorum at the Council meeting as a result of Councillors appropriately managing pecuniary conflicts of interest in accordance with the provisions of Council’s Code of Conduct (adopted 27 May 2019 which reflects the NSW Model Code of Conduct 2018). 

Due to the lack of quorum at the Council meeting on 25 November 2019, the Acting General Manager sub-delegated Council’s functions as the planning proposal authority to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) pursuant to Section 378 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG Act”).

The commissioning of the two technical studies result from the recommendations of the LPP from 25 and 26 June 2020 as follows:

1. Ethos Urban was engaged by Council to prepare the Foreshore Scenic Character Study to investigate the mapped extent and zoning of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA) in accordance with the resolution made by the Georges River Local Planning Panel on 25 and 26 June 2020 in dealing with the outcomes of public exhibition and finalisation of Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

2. Total Earth Care was engaged by Council to prepare the Biodiversity Study to identify the key biodiversity values within the LGA by assessing the diversity of flora and fauna present, analysing historical changes and identifying key opportunities to protect and conserve biodiversity in accordance with the resolution made by the Georges River Local Planning Panel on 25 and 26 June 2020.  Recommendation 4 of the Study - to require a more comprehensive assessment of the landscape, vegetation and fauna habitats to address the broader objectives of FSPA in any future review of the area’s boundaries .

Please note that the two Studies were prepared using funding from the NSW Government’s Accelerated LEP Program.

Further:

1. Action 90 of the Council endorsed Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) 2040 is to Develop a biodiversity strategy informed by the LGA-wide biodiversity study
2. Condition 15 of the NSW Government’s Conditions of Approval for the Georges River Local Housing Strategy (LHS), Council must bring forward a Planning Proposal in 2022 to implement the findings of the Biodiversity Study and the Foreshore Study.  

There is no resolution of Council to prepare a planning proposal to implement the findings of the Foreshore and Biodiversity Studies.

At the Councillor briefing workshop dated 6 June 2022, Councillors were informed of the intent to prepare the Planning Proposal in accordance with the LHS approval condition. 

At a subsequent briefing dated 18 July 2022 provided verbally by the Director Environment and Planning, it was proposed that preliminary community consultation be conducted before the preparation of any Planning Proposal which implements the findings of the Biodiversity and Foreshore Studies. This preliminary engagement is not a required step in the Planning Proposal process but is proposed to involve the community and enable a collaborative outcome. This is being conducted in response to the strong interest expressed by the community to be involved in the process of developing planning controls to implement the findings/recommendations of the Foreshore and Biodiversity studies.

It is anticipated that a report will be put forward to Council early next year reporting on the outcomes of this community consultation process and to seeking direction on the preparation of a Planning Proposal which implements the findings of the two Studies.

All submissions made to the draft LEP 2020 and all submissions to the LPP at the meeting dated 25 and 26 June 2020 were provided to Ethos Urban upon their engagement at the end of 2020.

All community members were invited to assist with the development of the Biodiversity Study by sharing their knowledge and observations of flora and fauna within the local area. This occurred at the end of 2020.

 Members of the community including members of Oatley Flora and Fauna were invited to be involved in the flora and fauna data collection exercises. The response to this invitation was disappointing with only 2 members of the community participating.

 On 3 August 2021, a community information webinar was held where Ethos Urban and Total Earth Care presented the findings and recommendations of the Biodiversity Study and Foreshore Study. 

A total of 56 community members registered and attended the webinar. The key issues raised by the attendees are summarised as follows:

1. The preparation of a Biodiversity Strategy should be prioritised in accordance with the recommended actions of the Biodiversity Study;
2. The trees and vegetation in backyards are equally as important as parks and reserves for wildlife, especially the protection of mature, hollow-bearing trees;
3. The reduction of the FSPA will lead to overdevelopment and loss of trees; and
4. The existing FSPA acts as a buffer that protects the biodiversity of Oatley Park and should not be reduced.

Furthermore, there was strong request for the community to be involved in the process of implementing the findings/recommendations of the Foreshore and Biodiversity Studies. In particular, the attendees requested for the extent of the recommended FSPA to be reviewed and revised by Ethos Urban and include community input in the development of planning controls. Council staff have collated a list of areas where further investigation by Ethos Urban has been requested by the community. The investigation of these matters has occurred and will be addresses as part of the preliminary consultation is now being undertaken with the community.

This is a consideration which must be addressed as part of the Planning Proposal process. Council endorsement for the preparation of a Planning Proposal has not yet been sought because the proposed controls have not been finalised. 

The purpose of the current community consultation process is to seek feedback to assist in the development of the planning controls through a collaborative approach with the community.

All relevant Ministerial Directions will be addressed as part of the Planning Proposal process.

This is a consideration which must be addressed as part of the Planning Proposal process. Council endorsement for the preparation of a Planning Proposal has not yet been sought because the proposed controls have not been finalised. 

The purpose of the current community consultation process is to seek feedback to assist in the development of the planning controls through a collaborative approach with the community.

 All relevant Ministerial Directions will be addressed as part of the Planning Proposal process.

Council has not endorsed the preparation of a Planning Proposal for the proposed controls. The purpose of the community consultation is to obtain community input to development of the planning controls relating to biodiversity, local character and the FSPA. This preliminary engagement is not a required step within the Planning Proposal process.

The ‘green’ and vegetated qualities of the UCAs is highly valued. Accordingly, the landscaping requirement for the UCAs is proposed to be consistent with the requirements within the FSPA. Additional landscaping requirements are also proposed introduced through the biodiversity overlays.

Council resolutions are not required for non-statutory preliminary consultations – it is an operational matter as to whether or not preliminary consultation is carried out. For instance when preparing plans of management and master plans for open space within the LGA, preliminary consultation is carried out by officers to obtain community feedback on the use of the open space, any issues with it and what are the needs of the community using it. The information we hear from the community at this pre consultation phase assists in shaping the direction of the plan/project when it is presented to Council for consideration and direction.

To clarify, the Study (Foreshore Scenic Character Study 2022) which is currently on this project page is the Foreshore Scenic Character Study 2021 incorporating the community feedback from the information webinar held in August 2021. The technical Study is completed and it is not appropriate for its methodology, findings and recommendations to be reviewed.

The purpose of the Foreshore Strategic Directions Paper (2018) was to inform the preparation of the draft LEP 2020. The content of the Paper is no longer relevant. All aspects of the Paper have been superseded by the Study, including the methodology employed, the findings and the recommendations.

None of the proposed controls, which are the subject of consultation, have been informed by the 2018 Paper. All of the relevant background information, including the resolution of the Local Planning Panel for the draft LEP 2020, have been detailed within the Study.

The UCAs are proposed to protect the unique visual characteristics of these areas, such as built form and the presence of vegetation. The planning framework is made up of multiple layers of controls, each with its own dedicated role and purpose. A development’s response to environmental risks such as bushfire and flooding are regulated through separate controls, for example Clause 5.11 Bush fire hazard reduction and Clause 5.21 Flood planning of the Georges River LEP 2021.

The purpose of the UCAs are to ensure the existing visual character are retained and respected by new development. The objectives of the proposed UCA are:

• To recognise the character of certain suburban localities adjacent to the FSPA
• To retain and enhance the unique character of these areas through new development that is consistent with the character of its locality
• To integrate with and retain the visual and landscape setting of the adjacent FSPA

The scope of the Foreshore Study is to investigate the role, extent and zoning of the existing FSPA in response to the resolution made by the Local Planning Panel in 2020. The Study examined the role of the FSPA within the historic Hurstville LEP 2012 and the current Georges River LEP 2021. The FSPA clause within the former Hurstville LEP included a number of elements with an emphasis on scenic qualities and views. The role of the FSPA within the current Georges River LEP is similar to the role within the Hurstville LEP, however there is greater emphasis on the protection of environmental values. The Study found the question of “what constitutes scenic quality” is not well articulated by the FSPA clause within both former and current LEPs.

 Given the role of the FSPA is to protect the scenic character values of the Georges River foreshore, the Foreshore Study recommends the objectives of the FSPA clause to be revised as follows:

1. To protect, maintain and improve the scenic character of the Georges River foreshore,
2. To protect, maintain and improve significant views to and from the Georges River,
3. To reinforce and improve the dominance of landscape over built form, hard surfaces and cut and fill,
4. To enhance existing environmental, social and character values of the foreshore.

Council’s planning framework is comprised of a number of distinct but interrelated parts. Each of these parts have their own role. It is acknowledged that the FSPA contains biodiversity values. However, the presence of moderate to high value terrestrial biodiversity has also been identified across the LGA. It is considered that the emphasis of biodiversity within the FSPA under the Georges River LEP has the potential to dilute the policy intent of the FSPA and result in confusion during the implementation of the development assessment process. Accordingly, the Foreshore Study recommends that the FSPA is reviewed to ensure a clear and specific focus on scenic character, subject to the adoption of appropriate provisions to protect the biodiversity values of the LGA.

 It is considered the most appropriate way to protect biodiversity values is through the introduction of a new biodiversity overlay. This mechanism is recommended by both the Biodiversity and Foreshore Studies. Georges River Council is one of the few LGAs within the metropolitan Sydney region that does not have a dedicated biodiversity overlay within its LEP. All adjoining councils (i.e. Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown and Sutherland Shire LGAs) have a dedicated biodiversity clause within their respective LEPs. The proposed standalone clause will ensure all biodiversity across the LGA can be appropriately protected. This clause will work alongside other existing LGA-wide environmental controls within the LEP including but not limited to 6.2 Earthworks, 6.3 Stormwater management and 6.5 Riparian land and waterways.

The Biodiversity Study provides an encompassing assessment of the current biodiversity values, conditions, locations and opportunities across the entire LGA. The scope of the Study is LGA-wide, including both public and privately-owned land. For the purposes of the Study, the LGA has been split into ‘Level 1’, ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 3’ sites based on biodiversity values that were identified during the extensive desktop assessment. These ‘Levels’ reflect the degree of assessment that was undertaken for the Biodiversity Study. Level 1 sites were assessed by desktop assessment only. Level 2 and Level 3 sites were assessed by field surveys, with the latter receiving a more comprehensive assessment (refer to Volume 1 of the Study for the full methodology).

 Due to the large size of the LGA and timeframe constraints, the whole LGA was assessed during the desktop assessment stage. As it was not achievable to assess the whole LGA via field based surveys, a specific methodology was developed to generally target larger patches of bushland, streets with important connectivity values and areas of high conservation value which had a higher likelihood of identifying biodiversity within the study area (i.e. Level 2 and Level 3 sites). As such, biodiversity in more urban and developed areas may be under-represented as the Level 1 areas were subject to a desktop assessment. Private properties were also not considered for field assessment due to small lot sizes, and as such lower likelihood of biodiversity, as well as access issues.

There is no existing evidence to suggest 50% of the LGA’s biodiversity is provided by privately owned land.

There are no changes proposed to existing lot sizes requirements. The following lot size combinations will be retained:

Larger lot size requirements for the existing FSPA and proposed UCAs

• 700m² for each new lot of land created for a freestanding house through subdivision
• 1,000m² land area to build a dual occupancy

Smaller lot size requirements for the rest of the LGA

• 450m² for each new lot of land created for a freestanding house through subdivision
• 650m² land area to build a dual occupancy

The primary objective of the draft Green Corridor overlay is to protect, strengthen and create continuous corridors to connect large areas of biodiversity value. One of the key controls is to ensure trees and landscaping are provided in a form and configuration that maintains and enhances core habitat and vegetated linkages.

The focus of zoning is on regulating land use. On this basis, changing the existing land use zone has the potential to generate significant impacts on a landowner’s ability to use their land, and by extension their development potential. The majority of land affected by the draft Green Corridor overlay are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and are owned by private landowners.

The R2 zone is a closed zone. This means that unless a land use is listed as being permissible, it is automatically considered to be prohibited. It limits permissible development to low density uses (e.g. dwelling house, dual occupancies, secondary dwellings and boat sheds) while also allowing for other uses that provide for day-to-day needs of the community such as centre-based child care facilities, medical centres and seniors housing.

Consideration was given by the Foreshore Study to the potential alternative zones available under the existing NSW planning framework (i.e. the Standard Instrument LEP). Most notably, the alternative of a C4 Environmental Living zone was considered.

The objectives of the C4 zone (accessed here) are aligned with the protection of the natural environment. However, this zone is considered to unreasonably restrict land use permissibility. The only permissible residential use in this zone is dwelling houses. Aforementioned land uses such as secondary dwellings, dual occupancies, boat sheds, centre-based child care facilities, medical centres and seniors housing are all prohibited under the C4 zone.

The prohibition of existing permissible land uses by converting all R2 zones into the C4 zone is not recommended as this will significantly disrupt the liveability and viability of land, as well as removing significant development potential from all privately owned land.

Additionally, even if the C4 zone is applied to replace the R2 zone, the site coverage and size of new developments will remain the same as what can be achieved under the existing R2 zone. This is due to the retention of the existing floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.55:1, which limits the amount of landscaped area that can be provided when compared to the neighbouring LGAs of Bayside Council, Canterbury-Bankstown Council and Sutherland Shire Council. These councils all have a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 for their low density residential areas. On a ‘standard’ residential lot of 450sqm, low density development within the Georges River LGA can have up to 5% of additional site coverage when compared to adjoining LGAs.

The extent of proposed changes is not isolated to the removal of properties from the existing FSPA. There are areas which are proposed to be converted from the FSPA into UCAs and additions of areas into either the FSPA or UCA.

There are approximately 5,630 low density residential zoned lots within the existing FSPA. In total, 3,303 lots are proposed to be removed from the FSPA, comprising of:

• 2,254 lots which will be converted into UCAs
• 1,049 lots which will not be part of the FSPA or UCAs – these are the areas where lot sizes are subject to review as informed by community input

There are also a number of lots which are not currently located within the FSPA but are proposed to be included into either the FSPA or UCAs with increased lot size requirements:

• 150 lots to be added into the FSPA
• 515 lots to be added into the UCAs

In summary, the proposed controls will see a total of 5,246 lots within the FSPA and UCAs, comprising:

• 2,477 lots to be located within the FSPA
• 2,769 lots to be located within the UCAs

 An overview of these changes is provided by the following table.