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).
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 2
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 3
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
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 4
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 5
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.”
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 6
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
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 7
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
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 8
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 9
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 10
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 11
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
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 12
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.
60. Miranda Centre: Pinnacle Street Precinct Page | 13
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.