SSEC logo Sutherland Shire Environment Centre  

SSEC's Submission on Sutherland Shire Council's
Draft LEP

15 th January 2004

Mr John Rayner
The General Manager
Sutherland Shire Council
PO Box 17
Sutherland, NSW 1499

Submission for Peoples Plan Ref. 03/00609

We commend Council for the many improvements introduced into this plan for protecting the natural land and water environment of the Shire. We are concerned that it does not appear that the recommendations we made in our June 2003 submission have been heeded, especially in light of the fact that the differences between the draft People's LEP 2003 and the current LEP are significant. The differences are so great we hardly recognise similarities between the two documents.

On a more positive note, we support the initiatives outlined in Chapter 6: Ecologically Sustainable Development. We look forward to positive results from the strengthening of planning controls for the protection of native fauna and flora, and remnant bushland.

We do not support:
  • Landscape. Reduction in landscape requirements for 2(e2) zone on 850sqm from 55% in FSPA to 45% and for 2(a1) zone from 50% in FSPA to 45%. We find it difficult to reconcile a reduction in landscaping area with costly measures for reducing stormwater flow in other areas.

  • Rezoning South Caringbah. The 2(a2) FSPA in South Caringbah should be zoned 2(e2) in recognition of its significant tree cover. There are desirable places in the Shire worth protecting, other than on the waterfront. Rezoning this sensitive area to 2(a1) would be a backward step in an LEP that is being promoted as being better for the environment.

  • Villas. We are opposed to basement carparking under villas. Excavation restricts underground waterflow and is not good for the environment. Furthermore, it is not necessary, as developments work quite well with ground level parking.

  • The Centre opposes more rezonings in Sutherland , including Precinct 8 , 3 storeys in local housing zone at Leonay St, six sites of 12 storeys

  • Development over railway stations . This inevitably leads to demand (from developers) for adjacent unit development to provide more customers. Small businesses are the losers.

Medium density controls
  • To avoid the large intrusive form of development we support including a maximum number of 7 villas in the LEP

  • There should be a separation distance of 100 metres and 10% maximum of medium density in a given area must be retained.

  • Minimum width of lot for villas should be kept at 25m (A frontage of 18m would allow gun- barrel developments with driveway adjacent to neighbours, which is why it was changed to 25m in the first place.)

  • The LEP should maintain side set back for villas at 1500mm. (The set back was obviously changed in the current draft LEP to accommodate smaller frontages.)

  • Basement carparking in villas should be prohibited. (It is bad for environment even if good for developers)

Residential flats, centres, building heights
  • Building heights in the LEP should remain as per the current adopted LEP - at three storeys (with variations of heights delegated to DCPs).

  • Kirrawee - the area surrounding Fauna Place. This is zoned multi dwelling A, which nominally does not permit residential flats but has 3 and 4 storeys. This sets a dangerous precedent and must be corrected.

  • Sutherland - 2 blocks fronting the Grand Parade and Jannali Ave and Leonay St zoned local housing with 3 storey heights. This must surely be a mistake. We oppose 3 storeys in a local housing zone.


Not suitable for all developments. Should be carefully controlled

General comments
  • Excavation . We are dismayed at the lack of supervision of development on the waterfront. There are currently significant excavations in Gunamatta Bay and Bundeena which appear to proceed unhindered. There are other examples of excavations occurring which have only been acted upon by Council after significant complaints by the community. Whatever the reason for tardy action on halting unlawful excavations, the damage is done. Has Council sufficient staff or procedures to enforce its rules?

  • Water pollution . Silt and rubbish are still being deposited in the waterways via stormwater drains. Urgent attention is needed for silt and rubbish traps on all major stormwater outlets, with the necessary maintenance.

  • Waste. Too much emphasis is placed on recycling household waste as opposed to prevention at the source. Council's education strategy should be leading the way to reduce the amount of waste, not just shuffle it around.

  • Sharks Proposal. The DLEP canvasses environmental issues such as acid sulphate soils, wetlands, protection of foreshores, contaminated land, zoning of sensitive areas as environmental high risk, and many more. Council voted unanimously to include all of these in the Draft Plan now on exhibition. How can Council seriously consider an application for rezoning and ultimately a development that will mock all of the dedicated work that has gone into the preparation of this DLEP. If the Shark's application is approved by Council, it will spell the end of the Peoples Plan. The Plan would lose credibility and set an uncontrollable precedent for other undesirable developments in the Shire.


We are concerned that this LEP is based on the current housing strategy, which allows for more rezonings for high density around the centres. It should be clearly spelt out that Council does not intend to proceed in this way.

In 1997 Sutherland Shire provided more units than any other area in Sydney. Residential flats are the most disliked form of housing development. Yet flat developments appear to be out of control in Sutherland and we are told there are a lot more to come. We are alarmed at the proposed heights of buildings in Sutherland. We do not support the rezoning of Precinct 8 for residential flats . Sutherland has the largest unused bank of land zoned for flats in the Shire. Council should be looking for ways to alleviate congestion in Sutherland, not adding to it. Sutherland has the most available unit sites in the Shire. In fact it seems that heights in Sutherland have got out of control. The new draft LEP also proposed that Sutherland should have a district supermarket, bulky goods store and major discount store. Bulky goods store and department store would be of doubtful viability. Has anyone considered the traffic and parking implications? It does not appear so.

All of the issues we have addressed above would add to overdevelopment. The Peoples Plan was promoted as the plan to protect the environment and reduce the opportunities for overdevelopment. Somewhere, it lost its way.

Yours sincerely

Miriam Verbeek (Dr)


Cc: Cr P Blight, Mayor; Cr Dawn Emerson; Cr G Rankin; Cr D Redmond, Cr K Schreiber; Cr R Spencer; Cr J Gormley; Cr L Rodden; Cr T Sonda; Cr M Daniel; Cr S Docherty; Cr G Hurley; Cr K McDonell; Cr S Simpson, Cr L Kelly

Top of Page