PLANNING PROPOSAL - 75-79 OLD PITTWATER ROAD & 19 CROSS STREET, BROOKVALE
The proposal includes a concept masterplan that envisages:
7 main buildings ranging in height from 10-17 storeys (5 with office/business premises on the lower 1-3 storeys and residential towers above)
11,893sqm of office/business floorspace
public parkland alongside the creek
a civic plaza and a public pedestrian spine.
PLANNING PROPOSAL - 75-79 OLD PITTWATER ROAD & 19 CROSS STREET, BROOKVALE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL USES AND INCREASE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
091/18 RESOLVED Cr Heins / Cr Harrison
That Council reject the Planning Proposal and not submit it to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for a Gateway Determination for the following reasons:
A. The proposal is inconsistent with regional and district planning for Brookvale as established by the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan.
B. The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s endorsed Draft Brookvale Structure Plan (2017).
C. There is no need for the planning proposal.
D. The proposal has not demonstrated strategic merit or site-specific merit.
E. The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the following Local Planning Directions: a. 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones b. 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport c. 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans d. 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney.
F. The proposal is not an appropriate strategic and development outcome, in particular: a. it will introduce a non-conforming (residential) use in the General Industrial zone that is inconsistent with the zone’s objectives and would set an undesirable precedent b. it will alienate from industrial use land in an industrial zone, and in doing so fails to protect important employment land and undermines the planned growth of the Brookvale-Dee Why Strategic Centre c. it will introduce new housing in an inappropriate location.
G. The information provided in support of the proposal does not adequately address the likely impacts of the proposal, particularly with regards to the economic and traffic impacts.
VOTING FOR: Unanimous