How to get green infrastructure outcomes with LEPs
- iconnolly
- Aug 9, 2019
- 7 min read
By Isabelle Connolly, Principal Planner, EConPlan
MEL, MURP, BA, Cert III Conservation & Land Management
August 2019
For the first time in NSW planning history, the state government is calling upon metropolitan councils to protect and enhance green infrastructure, not only for biodiversity, water quality and liveability, but also as a key management response to reducing urban heat from a changing climate.
The 40-year vision for the Greater Sydney Region, set out in the Metropolitan Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities and the District Plans, acknowledges green infrastructure is essential infrastructure, as the city’s population almost doubles. The plans seek to better connect urban habitat and people through healthier, more liveable and sustainable urban environments as the built environment becomes more concentrated and pressures on green infrastructure intensify.
The State Government has set a target to increase tree canopy cover to 40 per cent, up from the current 23 per cent and the Premier’s Priorities include greener public spaces and greening our cities. Already programs to increase tree canopy have begun including planting one million trees by 2022 and five million trees by 2030. Although this increase is largely targeted within the public realm, improvements in canopy on private property are also required if the canopy target is to be achieved.
The intent of this article is to explore ways that councils can integrate green infrastructure provisions in their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). The options below have been identified following consultation with numerous council planning, sustainability, bushland and tree management officers across Sydney. Many options are already tried and tested, but not widely applied. Where they exist, links to those LEPs have been included. Although Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions play a key role in supporting LEP aims and objectives, this article focuses on LEP tools only.
LEP Template
The LEP is the primary land use planning mechanism that influences land use, land character and green infrastructure. The land use zones, objectives and development standards establish the context for decision making on individual developments which shape urban areas.
The Standard Template that all LEPs must be based on, is flexible enough in its current form to promote better outcomes for green infrastructure on privately owned land. Councils could consider incorporating the following in their LEP.
Part 1, 1.2 Aims of the plan
Councils can choose their own LEP aims. Opportunities exist to incorporate new green infrastructure aims like biodiversity connectivity, green grid, urban tree canopy and urban heat reduction to improve liveability, walkability and cooler suburbs in the aims of the plan.
Part 1, 1.4 Definitions
Councils can add additional definitions if required to clarify clauses in the LEP e.g. “green infrastructure’, ‘green grid’, ‘biodiversity corridors’, ‘urban heat’ ‘urban heat island effect’, ‘liveable’, ‘urban canopy’ and ‘urban forest’. Definitions for many of these terms already exist in state government documents
Part 2, 2.3 Zone objectives
Direction 1 states “Additional objectives may be included in a zone at the end of the listed objectives to reflect particular local objectives of development but only if they are consistent with the core objectives for development in the zone as set out in the Land use table”.
Liveability outcomes from green infrastructure which relate to reduced urban heat for instance, could meet Direction 1 requirements for most zones.
Part 3 Exempt and Complying development
Clause 3.3 comprises compulsory clauses that identify environmentally sensitive areas that are excluded from the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.
A direction of the clause states “Additional areas may be added to this list”, allowing for areas identified as endangered ecological communities or threatened species habitat for instance, to be mapped in the LEP as ‘environmentally sensitive areas’ and / or listed under clause 3.3. Precedents include:
• Hunters Hill LEP 2012 River Front Area Map that incorporates privately owned land,
• Randwick LEP 2012 biodiversity values map, however it is largely in public ownership or within golf courses,
• Campbelltown LEP 2015 includes a) land within 40 metres of the top bank of a waterway or artificial waterbody, b) land that has a gradient exceeding 16%, c) land that is in Zone E2 Environmental Conservation,
• Penrith LEP 2010 includes a) land in Zone E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone W1 Natural Waterways or Zone W2 Recreational Waterways, b) land on the Natural Resources Sensitivity Land Map’, c) land near the river or in the riverine corridor, wetlands or conservation areas sub catchments, within the meaning of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20—Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No 2—1997),
• Canada Bay LEP 2013 includes land that is in Zone E2 Environmental Conservation as well as land identified as “Environmentally Sensitive Land” on the Environmentally Sensitive Land Map that includes some privately owned land along the foreshore,
• Sutherland LEP 2015 lists the following maps as indicating ‘environmentally sensitive land’ instead of listing the maps under clause 3.3 a) Natural Landform, b) Riparian Lands and Watercourses, c) Terrestrial Biodiversity
LEP Maps
LEPs can include a range of maps to support provisions in the LEP. An EConPlan analysis of all councils in the Sydney metropolitan area indicates the huge difference between councils as to whether they map environmental values.
Maps in LEPs that are based on solid research provide a good indication of a land’s natural values and its role in the landscape, not only its land use zone e.g. Sutherland LEP 2015 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map or Ku Ring Gai LEP 2015 Riparian Lands and Water Courses Map that identifies category 1-3a watercourses.
Although urban heat island, Green Grid and tree canopy maps do not yet exist in LEPs, the Office of Environment and Heritage maps and Government Architect maps will greatly assist Councils in preparing map layers in their LEPs on these matters, unless they opt to include them in DCPs.
Figure 1 below indicates the range of maps in LEPs within the 35 LGA’s in the Sydney Region and which maps are more commonly produced. Differences between council LEP mapping approaches are not only due to when their LEP was prepared, but also local politics, environmental values, environmental pressures, and socio economics.
Furthermore, associated provisions in the LEP vary widely in terms of how effectively those natural values are protected.
Figure 1. LEP Environmental Maps in the Sydney Region ©
Note: Statistics approximate due to multiple LEPs for some councils
Currently the DPIE is seeking feedback on a new approach outlined in Discussion Paper – Local Character Overlay for an optional local character map and associated clause identifying character areas in LEPs.
These areas would be based on local character statements either in an LSPS, DCP or a standalone document. “The overlay would sit within standard instrument local environmental plans and would provide a legal mechanism for introducing additional character assessment requirements for development applications or to exclude certain land from certain complying development or provide alternative requirements”.
This initiative will potentially have very positive outcomes for green infrastructure as councils will be able to set character expectations for desired future character that include the need for green infrastructure. However, as these areas will not cover the whole LGA, other tools will be required for a broader application of green infrastructure.
Some councils have included additional maps in their LEPs that may not relate to natural values but community expectation. For instance, in City of Parramatta, the LEP includes a dual occupancy prohibition map which will have a positive impact on the retention of existing tree canopy in those areas.
Similarly, heritage maps can also be used to protect green infrastructure values as natural, aesthetic, scientific or cultural values, as defined by the Heritage Act 1977 can be incorporated. These are then automatically defined as environmentally sensitive areas where complying development does not apply.
Split zones can be used to protect green infrastructure, for example in Penrith LEP 2010 where split zoning is used to achieve a strict delineation of land use between the E2 Environmental Conservation and E3 Environmental Management zone in some areas. Split zones have also been used in foreshore areas, however foreshore building lines can also produce a similar effect such as occurred at Seaforth where split zones were replaced with a foreshore building line in Manly LEP 2013.
Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions and Part 6 Additional Local Provisions
The LEP template gives councils the opportunity to include their own provisions that can relate to biodiversity or green infrastructure that are tied to environmental layers mapped in the LEP including minimum landscaped areas for different densities and environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Sutherland LEP cl.6.14. Minimum lot sizes and dimensions can also be stated to allow for generous landscaped areas to support future desired character of an area e.g. Ku Ring Gai LEP cl.6.6. for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings.
Provisions can require the consent authority to consider adverse impacts including wildlife corridor fragmentation, loss of tree canopy and only grant consent when impacts will be managed to avoid significant adverse environmental impact or where satisfactory alternatives or mitigation measures are applied.
Part 5 or 6 of LEPs can also include design excellence, sustainability excellence and precinct specific controls that focus on green infrastructure outcomes. Councils would need to define what that means, where it is to apply and how green infrastructure is to be considered.
New Approaches
As building technology changes and new mapping data becomes available, urban heat island effect provisions are more commonly being considered e.g. for Parramatta CBD urban heat management which may result in green infrastructure including green walls, roofs and trees.
The Greater Sydney green grid corridor identified within each district plan is also requiring planners to rethink the urban framework in terms of the best places to implement the corridors and the most suitable provisions to ensure outcomes. Sutherland Shire Council’s “Greenweb” is an example of comprehensive implementation of the green grid concept. It is recommended under the Metropolitan Strategy Objective 30 as an “innovative strategy to enhance and extend the urban tree canopy”. Sutherland Shire Council is currently exploring landscaping and setback controls to promote green infrastructure along the Greater Sydney green grid corridor identified in the South District Plan, to enhance walkability, biodiversity and urban cooling outcomes. I should note that Ku Ring Gai Council also has a Greenweb however neither Councils at this stage have incorporated their Greenwebs in their LEPs, only their DCPs.
Urban pressures are also forcing reviews of minimum deep soil areas, landscaping requirements, setbacks, tree protection, water sensitive urban design and incentive schemes which are typically contained in accompanying DCPs, to encourage green infrastructure. Amendments to relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and BASIX are also areas where the State Government can encourage positive greening outcomes in metropolitan areas, along with the creation of supportive guidelines that give councils confidence to implement innovative, place based responses.
Comments