CENTRAL SYDNEY PLANNING COMMITTEE 2 JULY 2009 …

CENTRAL SYDNEY PLANNING COMMITTEE 2 JULY 2009

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 8 DEFRIES AVENUE ZETLAND 16582506

ITEM 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 8 DEFRIES AVENUE ZETLAND

FILE NO: D/2009/426

SUMMARY

Date of Submission: 31 March 2009

Applicant: Meriton Apartments Pty Limited

Architect: Turner & Associates

Proposal Summary: Stage 1 development application for a multi unit housing development comprising a gross floor area of 99,800sqm containing up to 997 residential dwellings within 6 development blocks including 2 towers. The heights of the blocks range from 7 to 17 stories and the 2 towers are of 26 and 28 stories respectively. The proposal incorporates a basement car park for 1200 vehicles which extends under the roads and parks within the site.

One hundred and forty three (143) submissions were received in response to the notification. The issues raised include non-conformity with the Master Plan, overdevelopment, excessive height and FSR, urban design, environmental impacts, transport impacts, visual impacts, adverse impacts on living standards, loss of open space, overshadowing, loss of privacy, impacts on West Kensington Conservation Area, property damage and devaluation, insufficient green space and setting an undesirable precedent. The DA has a number of significant inconsistencies with the Master Plan (as amended), South Sydney LEP and the Green Square DCP. The proposed development, and particularly the resulting built form, does not satisfy the overall intent and design objectives of this suite of controls. The fundamental non-compliances are as follows:

• Not predominantly 6 stories;

• Additional tower;

• Tower(s) exceed 65m in height;

• 60m separation not provided above 10 stories.



Proposal Summary (cont’d)

On 2 April 2009, the Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) considered a Stage 2 development application for the southern adjoining portion of land (under the same ownership), which was designed to integrate with the subject proposal. The applicant had previously lodged a “deemed refusal” appeal with the Land and Environment Court on 12 February 2009 for that proposal. The CSPC deferred determination of that proposal to provide the applicant with an opportunity to adjourn court proceedings and to amend the proposal to conform with the core planning controls applying to the site and also specific design principles which were Attachment D of the planning report (the design principles also apply to the subject site). The applicant has not amended the plans as requested.

The applicant was likewise requested to amend the subject application. The proposal has not been amended and also fails to address the core planning controls and the specific design principles endorsed by the CSPC on 2 April 2009. Given the failure of the application in addressing these requirements, the subject proposal is recommended for refusal.

Summary Recommendation: The proposal is recommended to be refused for the reasons articulated in the report.

Development Controls (i) South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998.

(ii) Victoria Park Refined Master Plan (as amended) 2003 - deemed DCP.

(iii) South Sydney Development Control Plan 1997 - Urban Design (Part G: Special Precinct No. 9 - Green Square (December 2006).

(iv) Green Square Affordable Housing Development Control Plan.

(v) City of Sydney Notification of Planning and Development Applications Development Control Plan.

(vi) City of Sydney Contaminated Land Development Control Plan 2004.

(vii) City of Sydney Access Development Control Plan 2004.

(viii) City of Sydney Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2005.



Developer Contributions:

(i) City of Sydney Development Contributions Plan 2006.

Attachments: A - Selected Drawings and Photomontages

B - Former South Sydney Council determination of Victoria Park Refined Masterplan Amendment (2003)

C - Design Principles for Meriton Holding, ‘Victoria Park Eastern Corridor’ (endorsed by the CSPC on 2 April 2009)

D - Correspondence dated 10 June 2009 from Meriton Apartments Pty Limited

E - Submission from JPW Architects



RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that:

(A) development consent be refused for the following reasons:

(1) the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Clause 27C of South Sydney LEP 1998. In particular, the proposed development is not consistent with the Victoria Park Masterplan (as amended);

(2) the proposed development is contrary to the height and built form provisions of South Sydney DCP 1997 and the Victoria Park Masterplan (as amended). In particular, a predominant 18 metre building height does not prevail, two towers are proposed on the site where only one is permitted, the 65m tower height provision is exceeded, the tower(s) do not satisfy the requirements that they be slender in form, and buildings over 10 storeys are not separated by at least 60 metres;

(3) the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development) and the Residential Flat Design Code), in particular building separation;

(4) the proposal is inconsistent with the desired character for Victoria Park as articulated in the Masterplan (as amended) in terms of non-compliance with the built form controls, the provision of generous street landscaping and setbacks. These are the key controls which have achieved the identifiable and emerging character within Victoria Park; and

(5) granting of consent to the proposed development would not be in the public interest.



BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. The site is located within Zetland, an established mixed use suburb of South Sydney. It is approximately 3 km south of Sydney’s CBD and 1 km to the east of Green Square Railway Station.

2. The site is of irregular shape with a total site area of 21,339m2. The site has a frontage of approximately 212m to South Dowling Street to the east, and to the west includes the 183m southern section to Defries Avenue. The southern boundary is approximately 150m in length, whilst the northern boundary is approximately 60m in length.

3. With the exception of a 1.8m high wire mesh fence around the perimeter of the site and some freestanding signs within the site, the site is generally vacant.

4. To the immediate south of the site there is vacant land, which is also owned by the applicant (being part of the land commonly known as the “Cardy” site but hereafter referred to as the “Meriton” site). Development Application D/2008/1675 for a Stage 2 development application was considered by the CSPC on 2 April 2009 and determination was deferred to provide the applicant with an opportunity to amend the proposal to conform with the core planning controls applying to the site and also specific design principles endorsed by the CSPC. The applicant has not amended the plans as requested and the application is the subject of a “deemed refusal” appeal with the Land and Environment Court.

5. The subject DA site and southern adjoining site, known as the “Meriton” site, combine to form the southern portion of the Victoria Park Commercial Precinct (hereafter known as the ‘South Dowling Street Corridor’).

6. Further north and fronting South Dowling Street is the recently approved (and under construction) Audi Development (Ref: D/2007/2065). To the immediate west of this site, the Council is currently assessing a Stage 1 DA for a mixed residential / retail development comprising a 14 storey residential tower, a 540m2 tavern and 70m2 cafe fronting Cooper Place; and two 6 storey buildings with total parking for 192 vehicles with vehicular access from Hutchinson Walk (Ref: D/2008/2162). This application remains undetermined.

7. Beyond this site, further to the north and on the opposite side of Cooper Place, is the approved part Stage 1 (concept), part Stage 2 (detailed) DA for a mixed use development. The development comprises a neighbourhood shopping centre, commercial building and a number of residential flat buildings (Ref D2006/1559). Construction related to this consent has not commenced.

8. However, a new Stage 1 DA has been submitted for the northern portion of this site for a mixed residential development comprising part 25, part 32 storey tower with 423m2 non-residential (showrooms) at forecourt level fronting South Dowling Street; and a 15 storey building and 10 storey building with 152m2 of non-residential (café and retail) fronting Gadigal Avenue and basement car parking for 497 vehicles with access from Gadigal Avenue (Ref: D/2008/2161). This application remains undetermined.



9. South Dowling Street (4 lanes) and the Eastern Distributor (4 lanes) are located to the east of the site. Further east, and separated by a 3-4m high noise barrier is the residential area of Kensington, which is characterised by 2 storey walk up flats and large 1-2 storey detached dwelling houses.

10. To the west of the site is the recently approved “weLive” mixed residential development comprising 307 residential units in 5 buildings ranging from 5 to 15 storeys high, 660m2 of commercial/retail space, ground and basement level parking for 218 cars and communal landscape facilities (Ref D/2007/2330). This site has been purchased and is being developed by Meriton.

11. A Site Location Plan is provided in Figure 1 and Aerial Photo of Victoria Park in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Location plan (site outlined in red)



Figure 2: Aerial Photo of Victoria Park, including the subject site.

PROPOSAL

12. Development consent is sought for the following:

(a) Site layout including new streets and open space.

(b) A Gross Floor Area of 99,800sqm comprising 98,600sqm residential floor space and 1,200sqm of commercial space.

(c) An indicative 997 residential dwellings within 6 development blocks (Blocks C to H). (Refer to Figure 3)

(d) Block C - a part 7 and part 13 story residential building.

(e) Block D - 2 x 10 storey residential buildings.

(f) Block E - a part 7 storey, part 17 and part 10 storey residential building.

(g) Block F - a part 7 and part 13 storey residential building and 28 storey tower.

(h) Block G - a part 7 storey residential building and 26 storey tower.

(i) Block H - a part 7 and part 10 storey residential building.

(j) Basement car parking located under majority of the site including new roads and park, to accommodate 1200 cars.

DA Site Kensington

Audi Form

ESP

We-LiveEnergy

Aust

899 South Dowling



13. It is noted that the Statement of Environmental Effects and plans submitted with the development application describe the number of stories as 1 less storey than described above. This is misleading as the applicant has used proposed ground levels, not existing ground levels as the reference point. The existing ground level is significantly different to the proposed ground level as the applicant is proposing to elevate the development above existing ground level (refer to Figure 4). In this regard, the development will have the appearance of being 1 storey higher than described when viewed from South Dowling Street and Defries Avenue.

14. A full set of plans and photomontages are in Attachment A, with a site layout plan, a section plan, model photographs and Photomontages provided below:

Figure 3: Site layout including southern adjoining site D/2008/1675.

N

South Dowling Street



Figure 4 – Section illustrating incorrect use of ground level reference point

Figure 5 – Basement plan

N



Figure 6 – Photograph of model of proposal and southern adjoining Meriton site

Figure 7 – Photomontage of view north along Defries Avenue with subject proposal on the right and ‘We-Live’ development to the left

N

20

South Dowling Stre

‘ESP’ (built)

Energy Australia

‘weLive

899 South Dowling

Currently in LEC appeal

South Dowling

14

15

9

26

9

7

13 28

13

10

10

7

17

10 7

7 26

5 5 15 6

SITE



Figure 8 – Photomontage of view north along new road in the centre of the proposed site

Relevant Background

15. The following sections provide relevant background information in relation to the Masterplan (as amended), pre-DA discussions, CSPC and sub-committee briefings, Design Advisory Panel advice and the like.

Victoria Park Master Plan (1998)

16. In September 1998, a Master Plan prepared on behalf of Landcom was submitted to the former South Sydney Council. The 1998 Master Plan related to land bounded by O’Dea Avenue, Joynton Avenue and South Dowling Street, and including the subject site, and known as Victoria Park (comprising 240,438m2 site area, excluding area required by RTA).

17. The Master Plan proposed up to 360,000m2 total GFA for residential (2,500 dwellings), business, retail and community uses. A maximum FSR of 2.5:1 was set across the whole of the Victoria Park site, however there was provision to exceed the FSR on individual parcels of land where appropriate in recognition of the fact that the site (Victoria Park) would include land with no floorspace such as roads and parks. A maximum height limit of 24m (equivalent of 8 residential storeys) was set for the eastern predominantly commercial corridor. A 40m tower zone (equivalent of 13 residential storeys) was set around Defries Avenue, with preferred locations of towers indicated (refer to Figure 9 for Master Plan Framework and Figure 10 for Maximum Building Heights).



Figure 9 – Victoria Park Master Plan Framework



Figure 10 – Maximum Building Heights

18. As part of this Master Plan, the South Dowling Street Corridor, which includes the DA site, was identified as a mixed use area where the commercial/business activity (150,000m2) of the Victoria Park development was to be constructed. These facilities were to serve both residents and workers and complement other services provided in Green Square. This layout was due in part to its high visibility, and its potential to act as an acoustic buffer from traffic on South Dowling Street to residential development to the west.



19. On 10 February 1999, the Council endorsed the 1998 Master Plan in principle as “indicative only”, subject to conditions. One notably stated: “that further consideration be given to the design and location of residential towers to ensure separation between them is consistent with the Draft Green Square DCP”.

Victoria Park Refined Master Plan (1999)

20. In 1999, a Refined Master Plan was submitted to the Council on behalf of Landcom. The aim of this document was to further refine the design of the public domain and the bulk, form and character of development on the Victoria Park site.

21. On 8 December 1999, Council adopted the Refined Master Plan (and subsequently superseding the original Master Plan), subject to requesting (amongst other matters) further information relating to preparation of a Public Domain Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan and presentation to the South Sydney Traffic Committee.

22. Key features of the Victoria Park Refined Master Plan, as illustrated in Figures 11 and 12, were:

(a) Up to 611,700m2 total GFA for residential (up to 1,800 dwellings), business, retail and community uses across the whole of the Victoria Park site (which represents a maximum FSR of 2.5:1) (refer to Figure 11 for land use breakdown);

(b) Of the total GFA, 150,000m2 was to be commercial and retail floor space, with “Predominantly commercial” uses located in the block west of South Dowling Street (as per original Master Plan);

(c) A range of heights from 3 to 14 storeys for the whole Victoria Park site, but predominantly 4 storeys, with the eastern commercial corridor having a predominant height of 6 storeys, with 14 storey towers (refer to Figure 12);

(d) Major entry points at Joynton and O’Dea Avenues marked with ‘slim line’ towers;

(e) Preferred perimeter block courtyard forms (consistent with Green Square DCP objectives).



Figure 11 – Victoria Park Land Use (Refined Master Plan 1999)



Figure 12 – Building Height Plan

23. The Victoria Park Refined Master Plan, to the extent of any inconsistency, took precedence over the 1998 Master Plan.

Victoria Park Refined Master Plan Amendment (2003)

24. In March 2003, endorsement of Council was sought for an amendment, prepared by Johnson Pilton Walker on behalf of Landcom and Joynton South Pty Ltd, to the Refined Master Plan.

25. The subject amendment cited a lack of current market demand for commercial/office space, inadequate public transport relative to alternative commercial location and the large quantum of car spaces requiring intense commercial scale development as the primary reasons for the reduction in the amount of commercial development proposed on the eastern part of Victoria Park.



26. The major amendments proposed related to the South Dowling Street Corridor. These included substantial changes to the mix of the development, with an increase in residential and reduction in commercial uses; and adjustment of the 14 storey tower zone to accommodate 3 slim line towers of approximately 35 stories (which were subsequently reduced to 65 metres for the 2 southern towers and 80 metres for the northern tower). Also included was predominantly 6 storey podium buildings, with mixed uses in the northern section of the site and predominantly residential in the southern section. Adjustments to the car parking requirements were also sought.

27. Council, at its meeting on 19 November 2003, resolved to endorse only the following three principles associated with the Amendment, specifically relating to the following:

(1) Changes to the building heights for 3 landmark/gateway towers. The southern towers shall be limited to a maximum of 65m above the existing ground level and the northern tower limited to a maximum of 80m above existing ground level (Refer to Figure 13);

(2) Changes to the land use mix; and (3) Provision of off-street parking that exceeds the current rates specified under

South Sydney Development Control Plan No. 11 (DCP11) but not exceeding those rates specified under the recently exhibited draft review of DCP11.

Figure 13 – Endorsed building heights

65m max

65m max

80m max

DA Site

D/2008/1675



28. The Council Officer’s report noted that the depth and detail of information submitted by the applicant was insufficient and contained numerous inconsistencies that raised concern and provided little assurance for the community and Council. Accordingly, the unresolved issues were required to be further investigated prior to full endorsement of the Refined Master Plan Amendment. In particular, there were 17 points/issues that required further investigation relating to site planning at ground level, building heights, residential amenity, and traffic and parking (refer to Attachment B). This work has not been undertaken.

29. The 2003 Revised Master Plan (as amended) by virtue of recent changes to the Act, is a deemed Development Control Plan (DCP).

Pre-DA discussions

30. The applicant met with Council Officers in April, May and July 2008 to generally discuss development proposals on sites within their ownership, including the subject site. Matters discussed included preliminary urban design principles for the sites and the East West Boulevard alignment.

31. On 30 April 2008, the CSPC was briefed by officers and the developer. At that time, the pre-DA proposal related to the entire 3 lots under the control of the developer ie. 8 and 10 Defries Avenue and 899 South Dowling Street with a combined site area of 3.34ha (see Figure 14). The pre DA scheme comprised 9 residential buildings (ranging from 6 to 27 storeys), including 3 residential towers (23, 25 and 27 storeys).



Figure 14 - April 2008 pre-DA Site Layout Plan for 3 lots (‘Meriton’ site). The subject proposal exhibits a number of similarities, including 2 towers (3 towers on the entire Meriton site).

32. A number of significant concerns were raised by the CSPC and subsequent recommendations were:

N



(a) the general massing of the proposed scheme is unacceptable;

(b) a maximum of two towers over 20 floors should be allowed and these towers shall be oriented with the thinnest edge to the east and west;

(c) consideration be given to a lower ‘wall’ of apartments along South Dowling Street to shield the remainder of the site from road noise. The lower floors could be commercial uses;

(d) all buildings are to utilise passive environmental design to provide ventilation and acoustic attenuation; and

(e) taller, thin plan, through ventilated, north-south facing buildings should be spaced through the site.

33. On 2 July 2008, Council’s Director of City Strategy and Design emailed the applicant’s architect outlining design principles and an overlay diagram demonstrating the urban design principles discussed at the CSPC briefing. This advice was qualified and for information purposes only. This was made explicit in the email.

34. On 24 September 2008 a DA for the southern portion of the Meriton site (D/2008/1675) was submitted.

35. On 25 November 2008, Council Officers met with the applicant to discuss an alternate scheme prepared on their behalf by Tony Caro Architects for the larger ‘Meriton’ site including the site the subject of this development application. This proposal included an additional four 30-storey (98m) predominantly residential towers with an FSR of 4.5:1 (refer to Figure 15 and Figure 16). This represents 5 towers in total over the whole Meriton site when the Masterplan, as amended only allowed 2 x 65m towers.



Figure 15: Tony Caro / Meriton Pre DA Proposal

Figure 16: Tony Caro / Meriton Pre DA Proposal

Current DA site

30

30

30

30

5

5

5

5

N

Current DA site

N



Other Relevant History

36. On 31 March 2009, the subject DA was lodged.

37. On 23 April 2009, the applicant was advised in writing that a preliminary assessment had been undertaken and the proposal failed to comply with the core planning controls and also the specific design principles endorsed by CSPC on 2 April 2009. The applicant was requested to amend the proposal to address these concerns.

38. This request was re-iterated to the applicant multiple times after failure to respond. On 10 June 2009, the applicant advised that they were not amending the proposal and requested for it to be determined in its current form (Attachment D).

39. On 30 April 2009 the CSPC was briefed. Concern was expressed that the proposal failed to comply with the core planning controls and also the specific design principles endorsed by CSPC on 2 April 2009.

40. In relation to the southern adjoining site and application (D/2008/1675), the applicant has not taken advantage of the opportunity provided by CSPC to adjourn court proceedings and to amend the proposal to conform with the core planning controls applying to the site and also specific design principles. The appeal proceedings will commence in the Court on 22 June 2009.

41. On 12 June 2009, the applicant lodged a deemed refusal appeal with the Land and Environment Court in relation to the subject development application. On 19 June 2009 the appeal was discontinued by the applicant.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL

Section 79C Evaluation

42. An assessment of the proposal under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been made, including the following.

Section 79C(1)(a) Environmental Planning Instruments, DCPs and Draft Instruments and other considerations

WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2000

43. The proposal requires the concurrence of the Department of Water and Energy as it will require dewatering due to construction below the water table.

44. The Department has not provided its General Terms of Approval (GTAs), however, this does not prevent the consent authority from determining the application by refusal.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES (SEPPs)

45. The following State Environmental Planning Policies are relevant to the proposed development:



Infrastructure SEPP (2007)

46. A referral to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) was undertaken and comments have been received from SRDAC raising the following concerns:

(i) The trip generation rates within the traffic report accompanying the proposal differ from those recently provided for a proposal in 20 Gadigal Avenue. The proposed rates appear to underestimate the likely trip generation resulting from the proposal.

(ii) In the event that the proposal generates traffic volumes in excess of those anticipated by the Zetland Area Traffic Study (Maunsell 2004) the applicant is required to develop a traffic simulation model for Victoria Park.

(iii) No further comment can be provided until the above issues are addressed.

SEPP 34 - Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

47. SEPP 34 provides for the increased availability of housing within the inner city and to assist in meeting the demand for housing which is close to employment, leisure and retail opportunities.

48. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 34 and the State Government’s urban consolidation initiatives. The site is urban land that has the potential for multi-unit housing. It is strategically located in proximity to the Sydney CBD and is generally serviced by existing public infrastructure, transport and community facilities.

SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land and City of Sydney Contaminated Land DCP

49. The aim of SEPP 55 and the DCP is to ensure that a change of land use will not increase the risk to health, particularly in circumstances where a more sensitive land use is proposed.

50. A Summary Site Audit Report and Site Audit Statement (dated 14 May 2001) were prepared by Contamination Management Pty Ltd in accordance with the Contamination Land Management Act 1997. It advises that the site is suitable for residential development. Council’s Health Unit is satisfied that subject to conditions, there is sufficient information within these documents to conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

51. SEPP 65 provides that in determining an application for a residential flat development of three or more floors and containing four or more apartments, that the consent authority takes into consideration a number of design quality principles and the Residential Flat Design Code.

52. As noted further below, whilst the proposal is for building envelopes and not a detailed design, it does not provide minimum building separation as required under the provisions of the Code. Specifically, a building separation of 24m is required for buildings 9 stories and above. Buildings over 9 stories in Blocks C and D, and also Blocks F and E are only separated by approximately 17m and fail to provide a minimum building separation required under SEPP 65.



LEPs AND DCPs

South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998

53. Compliance of the proposal with the LEP controls is summarised below:

Development Controls

Permissible under South Sydney LEP 1998

Proposal as assessed under South Sydney LEP

1998

Planning Principles (Part 2)

Development is to be considered having regard to the goals and objectives within the Strategy for a Sustainable City of South Sydney

The proposed DA is at odds with the Strategy given the proposals inclusion of built form (including an additional tower) that is inconsistent with the Master Plan and DCP.

Zoning Controls (Part 3)

Mixed Uses 10(b)

The development is permissible in this zone but its proposed built form is inconsistent with the Master Plan and DCP, and therefore inconsistent with the zone objectives.

Development at Green Square (Cl 27A, 27B)

The Green Square vision encompasses the concepts diversity, connectivity, interdependency and long-term growth.

Approval in its current form is considered inconsistent with the vision for Green Square.

Determination of development applications (Cl 27C)

Council must not grant consent unless the development is consistent with an adopted Master Plan

Refer discussion below.

Affordable housing (Cl 27P)

Development within Zone 10(b) is subject to affordable housing contributions.


Urban Design Principles and Master plans (Cl 28)

Development is to satisfy urban design requirements. Council must consider any master plan for the land.


Contaminated Land (Cl 39)

Council is to consider the issue of contamination.

Refer to SEPP 55 discussion above.

South Sydney Development Control Plan 1997: Urban Design - Part G: Special Precinct No. 9 Green Square

54. Compliance of the proposal with the DCP controls is summarised below:



Matter to be Considered

Compliance

Comment

PART 2: URBAN STRATEGY Landscape Elements Section 2.2

Partly complies: Concerns are raised that proposing basement parking beyond the building footprint and under the future roads will not promote deep soil planting and thus substantive street trees, and will hinder the environmental sustainability of the development.

Transport and Parking Section 2.3

Able to comply.

Stormwater Management Section 2.5

Able to comply – However not in a manner consistent with the Masterplan.

Social Infrastructure Section 2.6

Able to comply.

Land Use and Neighbourhood CharacterSection 2.7

Does not comply: The development does not respond to the future desired character of the area by providing built form inconsistent with the controls.

PART 3: URBAN FRAMEWORK PLAN Public Domain Section 3.1

Does not comply: Unsatisfactory Public Domain Works are proposed as part of the application

Built Form Section 3.2

Does not comply: The proposed built form is not supported. Refer discussion below.

Building Type and Envelopes Section 3.2.1

Does not comply: Built form is not consistent with the controls. Refer to discussion below.

Height and Scale Variations Section 3.2.2

Does not comply: Building heights are not consistent with the DCP or Master Plan. Refer to discussion below.

Building Interface Section 3.2.4

Does not comply: The buildings have not been designed to respond well with the public domain. Abundance of parking adjacent to public domain. Refer discussion below.

Parking Section 3.2.9

Able to comply.



Green Square Affordable Housing Development Control Plan 2002

55. The DCP requires 3% of residential and 1% of non-residential total floor area to be provided for affordable housing, either in kind / on-site or a monetary contribution in lieu.

56. Given the size of the contiguous allotments under the control of the applicant, a rare opportunity exists to provide affordable housing on site. Whilst the subject application is a Stage 1 proposal for building envelopes and does not attract a levy, the applicant is encouraged to consider the provision of this accommodation on the site, rather than a monetary contribution in lieu of affordable housing.

City of Sydney Contaminated Land Development Control Plan 2004

57. Refer discussion above under the heading SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land.

City of Sydney Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2005

58. The subject application is a Stage 1 proposal for building envelopes and does not require the provision of a child care centre. Notwithstanding this, a suitable location should be nominated at Stage 1. Should the subject application be approved, a condition of consent would be recommended requiring the subsequent Stage 2 proposal to incorporate a child care centre as the proposal would reach the threshold of 30 places.

ISSUES

59. The issues identified in the above instruments/policies as non-complying or requiring further discussion in the abovementioned tables are discussed in detail below.

Threshold Issue

60. Clause 27C of the South Sydney LEP states that:

“The Council must not grant consent for development of any land within Green Square unless:

(a) there is a masterplan adopted by the Council for the development site…and

(b) the development is consistent with the masterplan.”

61. It is noted that the LEP allows for an amending Masterplan to be submitted or for the provision to be waived (for minor development or in instances where other planning controls are adequate or for such other reasons deemed fit by the consent authority).

62. The application has been lodged as a Stage 1 Development Application pursuant to Section 83B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which seeks not to comply with the requirements of the Victoria Park Refined Master Plan Amendment (2003). The proposal is a Development Application which concerns itself only with the subject site, and is not an application to amend the Victoria Park Refined Master Plan Amendment (2003).



63. An application to amend the Master Plan should reasonably incorporate an examination of Victoria Park in its entirety, and be prepared in accordance with the masterplan parameters set out in South Sydney LEP. It would involve a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing constraints and opportunities of Victoria Park and explore various alternatives for Victoria Park in its entirety. A proposed amendment to the Master Plan would also be required to retain consistency with the core planning controls which apply to the site within the South Sydney Development Control Plan 1997: Urban Design – Part G: Special Precinct No. 9 Green Square, including predominant heights and building separation.

64. The proposal is a Stage 1 Development Application for building envelopes which are not consistent with the Master Plan and therefore the proposal fails this threshold test and the CSPC must not grant consent.

Height

65. The table below summarises the proposal’s compliance with the height controls:

Control Proposed Compliance

DCP Predominant 18m (equivalent to 6 res storeys) plus attic

Flexibility allowed up to street width plus 1.6m with floors beyond under a 45o height plane (ie. 37.6m to Boulevard and 21.6m to Defries Ave)

Nil 6 storey

Master plan

Predominant height of 6 storeys

14 storey tower zone

Tower with max height of 65m

Building C 7 storey (28.3m), 13 storey (47.1m) Building D 10 storey (37.6m-38.5m) Building E 7 storey (28.3m), 10 storey (38.9m), 17 storey (59.3m) Building F 7 storey (27.9m), 13 storey (47m), 28 storey (92.9m) Building G 7 storey (27.6m), 26 storey (86.4m) 7 storey (27.6m), 10 storey (37.6m)

/

66. Besides the tower height limit, the other key provision is that a predominant 18m / 6 storey height should prevail. This provision is in both the DCP and the Masterplan and will ensure a comfortable street environment for pedestrians in terms of daylight, scale, sense of enclosure and wind mitigation, as well as a healthy environment for street trees. Compliance with this provision will also integrate with the balance of Victoria Park and ‘complete’ the Masterplan vision.

67. The proposal does not include any 6 storey buildings. As discussed previously, where the applicant has indicated 6 storey buildings, this is incorrect as the reference point used is the proposed ground level, not the existing ground level. Therefore, the low scale buildings in the proposal are 7 stories and approximately 28m in height, which is 10m above the required predominant height of 18m.



68. Notwithstanding the above, the low scale buildings (which still exceed the predominant 18m height control) only comprise approximately 25% of the proposed built form for the site.

69. The proposal includes two towers where only one is envisaged under the Masterplan. Further, the towers have respective heights of 92.9m and 86.4m, which means that they are respectively 27.9m and 21.4m higher than envisaged by the Masterplan.

70. The proposal seeks significant departures from the height controls applying to the site under both the DCP and Masterplan. These height controls have achieved a recognisable emerging character in Victoria Park. The proposed departures to the height control would result in a significant detrimental impact upon this character and result in a form alien to and inappropriate for Victoria Park.

Built Form

71. The following table summarises the proposals compliance with two of the key built form controls:

Control Proposed Compliance

Slender Forms

(DCP Cl. 3.2.1 and M’Plan Section B.3.3)

Above 8 storeys buildings are designed as slender forms and sited and orientated for least environmental impact (700 sqm floor plate)

Two towers have floor plates of approx. 790sqm

Buildings over 8 stories in Blocks E and H have floor plates substantially over 700sqm at approximately 970sqm and 1300sqm

/

Building Separation

(DCP Cl. 3.2.3)

Above 10 storeys minimum building separation is to be 60m

The below assessment is in relation to buildings within the blocks which are 10 stories and above.

Buildings within Block D separated by 20m-30m

Block D and C separated by approx 17m

Block C and A (southern adjoining site) separated by approx 17m

Block F and C separated by approx 37m

Block F and H separated by approx 28m

Block F and E separated by approx 17m

Block G and H separated by approx 18m-30m



72. The buildings within Block E and also Block H which are over 8 stories have respective floor plates of approximately 970sqm and 1300sqm. In this instance, the size of the floor plates would not be considered problematic if the buildings were appropriately reduced in height to 8 stories or below to achieve a predominant 18m/6 storey height for the development. However, as currently proposed, the height of the buildings combined with the large floor plates would result in an excessively bulky form and a crowded character to the proposal, inconsistent with the DCP, and are not supported.

73. The two proposed towers have floor plates of approximately 790sqm (approximately 860sqm inclusive of balconies). These floorplates are similar to other recently approved floor plates for residential towers (including balconies) in the vicinity of the subject site.

74. Notwithstanding that there should only be one tower on the subject site, the proposed floor plate for the towers are considered to be of appropriate size and proportions to achieve a slim-line appearance which is consistent with the previously approved towers within Victoria Park and the objective of the DCP for slim-line towers.

Floor Space

75. In 2003, the former South Sydney Council adopted, amongst other things, a “change to the land use mix” for the South Dowling Street corridor only such that it is now predominantly residential. To understand the land use mix change, which was not quantified in the Council Resolution, it is reasonable to be guided by the officer’s report that was considered. In this regard, the following table summarises the gross floor area and land use mix contained in the report.

Land Use GFA

Office and retail 35,000m2

Residential 150,000m

2

Community facilities 8,000m

2

Total GFA 193,000m2

FSR (based on site area of 61859m2) 3.12:1

76. By way of context, the following table provides a comparison with the balance of Victoria Park.

Victoria Park as a whole

South Dowling St Corridor

Proposed

FSR / GFA

2.5 : 1

611,700sqm

(Site area of 244,680sqm)

3.12 : 1

193,000sqm (of which 150,000sqm

for residential)


4.67 : 1

99,800sqm




77. It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in the total FSR / GFA available for Victoria Park as a whole being exceeded. The desired built form and resulting bulk and scale on individual sites within Victoria Park is governed primarily by the height and building separation controls, not by the FSR which provides for an overall quantum of floor space within Victoria Park.

Public Domain Matters

78. The Master Plan requires a 10m landscaping setback along South Dowling Street frontage. The proposed setback ranges from 5m to 7m. This reduction is not supported.

79. Basement car parking extends beyond the building footprint under the new roads and open space. This is not acceptable in that it does not promote deep soil zone or allow substantive street trees. It also does not assist the environmental sustainability of the development as per the Residential Flat Design Code.

Design Principles Endorsed by the CSPC on 2 April 2009

80. On 2 April 2009 the CSPC considered a Development Application for the southern adjoining Meriton site and deferred determination of that proposal to provide the applicant with an opportunity to amend the scheme to address ‘Design Principles for Meriton Holding’, which were attachment D to the planning report.

81. The endorsed Design Principles (Attachment C) apply to the entire Meriton holdings and are therefore a relevant consideration in relation to the subject proposal.

82. The subject proposal fails to address many of the Design Principles and, in particular, the following fundamental requirements:

(a) Principle 5: The Meriton holdings are only to contain 2 towers. The combination of the southern Meriton site and the subject proposal results in a provision of 3 towers, which exceed 65m in height.

(b) Principle 6: A predominant 6 storey height is not provided.

(c) Principle 8: A 60m separation is not provided between buildings above 10 stories.

(d) Principle 9: Mid-rise elements are not limited to 18m in height and do not have their long axis oriented east-west.

(e) Principle 13: Streets are not capable of being substantially landscaped as all streets are proposed above a basement level car park and removing deep soil opportunities.

(f) Principle 16: Car parking has not been located only under building footprints, rather it extends under the entire site. Minimal deep soil has been provided.

(g) Principle 19: A 10m deep soil landscape setback to South Dowling has not been provided.



Section 79C(1)(b) Other Impacts of the Development

83. The proposed development will not result in any significant additional impacts other than those already identified and discussed above.

Section 79C (1) (c) Suitability of the site for the development

84. The site is suitable for the residential development, but not as proposed.

Section 79C (1) (e) Public Interest

85. The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant controls. In this regard it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the public interest and cannot be supported in its current form.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

86. Not applicable to this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 94 Contributions/ Affordable Housing

87. The proposal is a Stage 1 Development Application and should it be approved would not be subject to a Section 94 or Affordable Housing contribution as this would be addressed in a Stage 2 consent.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Section 79C(1)(d)

Advertising and notification

88. Adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers of buildings within 200m of the subject site were notified of the proposal and invited to comment (Note: the Council’s Notification DCP requires a minimum 75m radius for a development of this nature).

89. In addition, notices were placed on the site and the proposal was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald in accordance with the provisions of the City of Sydney Notification of Planning and Development Applications Development Control Plan 2005.

90. Details of this DA were also presented at the Green Square Community Forum meeting on 29 April 2009.

91. The application was notified for an extended period, between 14 April and 22 May. One hundred and forty three (143) total submissions were received comprising 49 individual submissions, 93 pro-forma letters, and 1 petition containing 56 signatures.

92. The grounds for objection are summarised as follows:-

(a) Non-conforming with approved Master Plan (b) Overdevelopment of site



Comment: Agreed. These matters are addressed in the Issues Section of the report.

(c) Excessive height (d) Excessive FSR (e) Urban design impacts (f) Environmental impacts (g) Transportation impacts (h) Visual impacts

Comment: Agreed. These matters are addressed in the Issues Section of the report.

(i) Loss of views and overshadowing

Comment: Agreed, given that the proposal exceeds the permitted height controls.

(j) Impact on standard of living of local residents

Comment: If a revised scheme were submitted in line with the principles for future development it is considered that the proposal would satisfactorily provide increased services and facilities on-site for use by both future residents and existing residents in the surrounding area.

(k) Lack of open space

Comment: Agreed. A more permeable street network, with associated public domain, is necessary to service the site. (l) Loss of privacy

Comment: Whilst the perception of loss of privacy is evident from the scheme of this nature, the proposed windows and balconies are sufficiently located, orientated and separated from existing properties to ensure privacy levels are generally maintained.

(m) Impact on West Kensington Conservation Area

Comment: There is considerable distance between the subject site and West Kensington to ensure the scheme does not impact on the heritage significance of the Conservation Area.

(n) Construction impacts

Comment: The proposal is for a Stage 1 building envelope which, if approved, would not grant consent for construction.

(o) Consent should not be granted for any building over 14 stories in height

Comment: There is a Masterplan for Victoria Park which permits 2 towers of 65m in height in the Meriton holdings along South Dowling Street. It is an appropriate expectation that such development will occur at the site in the future. Apart from these towers, there should be a predominant 6 storey height with opportunity for an occasional 14 storey element.



(p) Devalue local property prices (q) Poor quality developer

Comment: These are not relevant planning consideration.

(r) The proposal will result in excessive noise reflection from buildings into West Kensington

Comment: There are fundamental issues with the current proposal which need to be resolved prior to the consideration of any further impacts. The issue of noise reflection should be considered in a future application.

(s) The excessive density is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the community of Victoria Park resulting from a lower proportion of owner occupiers

Comment: The likely proportion of owner-occupiers in the future is unknown and not a relevant planning consideration.

(t) There is insufficient shopping infrastructure within Victoria Park

Comment: The Masterplan amendment in 2003 permitted a reduction in commercial floor space on the current site in favour of residential use. The proposal is not unacceptable on the grounds of proposal use.

(u) The mix of apartments does not conform to Council’s requirements

Comment: The proposed apartment mix is indicative only and will be determined at a future Stage 2 DA.

(v) The proposed car parking provision is insufficient which will increase the burden on on-street car parking spaces

Comment: The car parking provision would be determined at a detailed Stage 2 application in accordance with Council controls. The 1200 car parking spaces in the subject application are indicative only.

(w) The proposal will result in detrimental impacts upon the water table

Comment: The proposal requires the concurrence of the Department of Water and Energy as it will require dewatering due to construction below the water table. The Department will only provide its concurrence if it is satisfied with the impacts upon the water table.

(x) Safety concerns raised in relation to the impact of the height of the

buildings upon airport operations

Comment: The application was referred to Sydney Airport Corporation as the proposed building envelope is above the prescribed heights for Sydney Airport. Notwithstanding any consent that CSPC may issue, the applicant must also obtain consent from Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Development pursuant to Section 183 of the Airports Act 1996.



93. In addition, it is also noted that a submission has previously been received from the Honourable Kristina Keneally, Member for Heffron in relation to the BDS development within Victoria Park. Relevant to the subject proposal, the submission supported the consistent application of the endorsed Victoria Park Master Plan.

94. A submission was received from Randwick Council objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it is not consistent with the Masterplan controls and the additional population has not been considered in the provision of local infrastructure which will result in unacceptable traffic impacts. Concern is also raised in relation to noise impacts, lack of open space, potential impacts on the West Kensington heritage conservation area, and a preference for high residential densities to be located in close proximity to Green Square train station.

95. A submission was also received from Landcom. Their review of the DA advises that the proposal is not in accordance with the intent of the Victoria Park Master Plan. Landcom’s submission is supported by an independent architectural review of the DA by the firm Architectus and also JPW Architects, both of whom concludes that the proposal is out of scale with surrounding area and is not consistent with the Master Plan.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Integrated Development

96. The proposal is Integrated Development as it will require the site to be dewatered. The Department of Water and Energy has not provided its General Terms of Approval (GTAs), however, this does not prevent the consent authority from determining the application by refusal

Infrastructure SEPP

97. The development was required to be referred to the RTA under the Infrastructure SEPP discussed previously in this report. This issue has been discussed previously in the report.

Commonwealth Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996

98. The application was referred to Sydney Airport Corporation as the proposed building envelope is above the prescribed heights for Sydney Airport. To date, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited and Airservices Australia have not provided written comments on the proposal.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

99. The application was referred to Council’s:-

(a) Specialist Surveyor;

(b) Building Services Unit

(c) Public Domain Unit;

(d) Specialist Health Surveyor;

(e) Urban Designer;



(f) Traffic Engineer;

(g) Properties Unit;

(h) Tree Management;

(i) Waste Management.

100. No concerns that cannot be overcome by imposing suitable conditions have been raised within referrals to the above experts with the exception of Council’s Urban Design Unit and Public Domain Unit. These concerns have been addressed in the Issues Section of this report.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

101. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Water Management Act 2000.

CONCLUSION

102. The proposal is a Stage 1 Development Application for building envelopes which are not consistent with the Master Plan and therefore the proposal fails this threshold test and the CSPC must not grant consent

103. Notwithstanding this, given the non-compliances with overarching key planning controls within the South Sydney DCP 1997 which apply to the site relating to height and built form, the proposal would not be supported in the event that consent could be granted.

104. It is recommended that the proposal be refused.

BILL MACKAY Acting Director City Planning and Regulatory Services

(Aaron Sutherland, Senior Planner)

CENTRAL SYDNEY PLANNING COMMITTEE 2 JULY 2009 …

Documents

Transcript of CENTRAL SYDNEY PLANNING COMMITTEE 2 JULY 2009 …