Planning and Development Committee - 05 December 2016 - Item … · 2016. 12. 5. · DEVELOPMENT...

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE 5 DECEMBER 2016

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 88-108 WILLIAM STREET WOOLLOOMOOLOO 14532311

ITEM 10. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 88-108 WILLIAM STREET WOOLLOOMOOLOO

FILE NO: D/2016/1240

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: D/2016/1240

SUMMARY

Date of Submission:

The application was lodged on 2 September 2016. Amended plans were submitted on 27 September 2016.

Applicant:

Harrison Geier

Architect:

Claude Neon

Developer: Henning Harders (Australia) Pty Ltd

Owner: KAH Australia Pty Ltd

Cost of Works: $328,350

Proposal Summary:

Consent is sought for the erection of three (3) perforated plant room screens to be located on the northern, eastern and western elevation of the building’s roof top plant room and erection of three (3) internally illuminated building name signs, with the word ‘HARDERS’, situated over each of the new perforated plant room screens. The applicant has provided a breakdown of all the tenancies in the building and the level/area occupied by each tenant. Currently, across 26 floors there are 58 tenants and 7 vacant tenancies, occupying areas of between 20 sq.m to 896sq.m. Henning Harders, are the significant or primary tenant within the building occupying all of Level 15 and part of Level 9, equating to a total area of approximately 1137sq.m. The proposed signage reaches a height of 89m above ground level, which results in a height exceedance of 39m or 78% over the 50m height control for the site. The existing building height is 93m. As a result, the application must be reported to Council for determination. The proposed signage will replace signage that was previously approved in the same location on the building but is no longer displayed. The proposed signage does not exceed the height of the existing building on any elevation.



Proposal Summary (continued):

An exception to the Height development standard has been considered against the objectives and provisions of Clause 4.6. It is considered that as the signage replaces that previously approved in the same location, does not exceed the height of the existing building, and does not have any adverse amenity impacts on surrounding properties and relates to the significant tenant, it is acceptable in this instance.

Summary Recommendation:

The development application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Development Controls:

(i) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (Deemed SEPP)

(ii) State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage

(iii) Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

(iv) Sydney Development Control Plan 2012

Attachments:

A - Conditions of Consent

B - Selected Drawings

RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that:

(A) the variation sought to the height development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 'Exceptions to development standards' of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 be supported in this instance; and

(B) consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/1240, subject to the conditions as detailed in Attachment A to the subject report.



BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. A site visit was carried out on 18 October 2016.

2. The site is rectangular, occupying an area of approximately 2,548sqm, with a primary street frontage to William Street and secondary street frontages to Crown Street, Robinson Street and Palmer Street. The site is occupied by two buildings; one accommodates the ‘The Sydney Boulevarde Hotel’ and the other consists of a range of commercial and office tenancies with basement car parking.

3. The applicant, Henning Harders (Australia) Pty Ltd, is a global logistics company occupying all of Level 15 and part of Level 9 within the commercial tenancy building on the site.

4. Surrounding land uses are a mix of residential and commercial uses. To the north of the site are a row of locally listed heritage terrace dwellings with frontage to Crown Street and an eight storey residential flat building with frontage to Palmer Street. To the south are three to four storey buildings with ground floor commercial and residential above. There is large vacant lot to the east, and to the west is the City Ford building fronting Crown Street, and a twenty storey building with commercial and residential uses at 72-80 William Street.

5. Several buildings with frontage to William Street are in proximity to the subject site and have various kinds of high level signage including large billboards, illuminated lettering, and LED screens. Examples include:

(a) ‘Redd’s Apple Ale’, 61-71 William Street, Darlinghurst on the corner with Riley Street;

(b) ‘TTG 80’, 72-80 William Street, Woolloomooloo on the intersections with Crown Street and Riley Street;

(c) ‘ooh’ (various), 126-132 William Street, Woolloomooloo on the corner with Bourke Street;

(d) ‘Olivetti’ and ‘Officespace’, 140-148 William Street, Woolloomooloo on the corner with Bourke Street;

(e) ‘Universal Music’, 150 William Street, Woolloomooloo on the corner with Forbes Street;

(f) LED screen (various), 169-173 Darlinghurst Road, Darlinghurst, with frontage to William Street; and

(g) ‘Avis’, 174-194 William Street, Woolloomooloo on the corner with Dowling Street.

6. The site is not a heritage item. The majority of the site is not located within a heritage conservation area however, the northern section of the site (fronting Robinson Street) is on the boundary with the Woolloomooloo Conservation Area (C71).

7. Photos of the site and surrounds are provided below:



Figure 1: Aerial image of subject site and surrounding area in red hatching. Location of proposed signage highlighted in blue

Figure 2: William Street, primary frontage of the site

N



Figure 3: Looking west along William Street. Location of proposed east facing sign highlighted in white

Figure 4: Looking south from Palmer Street. Location of proposed north facing sign indicated



Figure 5: Looking east from William Street. Location of proposed west facing sign indicated in black hatching

PROPOSAL

8. The application seeks consent for erection of roof level signage consisting of:

(a) removal of all existing steel frames from the previous signs, repairing any old fixings and installing new support structures;

(b) erection of three (3) perforated plant room screens on the northern, eastern and western elevations of the building’s rooftop plant room. The plant room screens are to be painted Dulux Monument Grey;

(c) erection of one (1) building name sign ‘HARDERS’ on the east elevation of the building. The sign will be individual, internally illuminated letters in front of the proposed perforated plant room screen. The screen will measure approximately 4m x 24.8m, and the lettering across the screen will measure approximately 2.9m x 19.6m;

(d) erection of one (1) building name sign ‘HARDERS’ on the north elevation of the building. The signs will be individual internally illuminated letters in front of the proposed perforated plant room screen. The screen will measure approximately 4m x 21.9m, and the lettering across the screen will measure approximately 2.9m x 19.6m;

Proposed sign



(e) erection of one (1) building name sign ‘HARDERS’ on the west elevation of the building. The signs will be individual internally illuminated letters in front of the proposed perforated plant room screen. The screen will measure approximately 4m x 25m, and the lettering across the screen will measure approximately 2.9m x 19.6m; and

(f) each letter will be aluminium fabricated with orange translucent faces internally illuminated with white LEDs.

9. Plans of the proposed development are provided below.

Figure 6: Proposed roof level signage to be located over new perforated plant room screens



Figure 7: Proposed typical section for west elevation

Figure 8: Proposed typical sections for north and east elevations



Figure 9: Proposed photomontage of roof level signage during the day (left) and at night (right) on north elevation

Figure 10: Proposed photomontage of roof level signage during the day (left) and at night (right) on western elevation



Figure 11: Proposed photomontage of roof level signage on east elevation

HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

10. The site has a long planning history and has been subject to many development applications, several of which have related to various signage on the building dating back to the 1970s.

11. In 1972, DA 762/71 approved signage across the two buildings on the site in association with ‘The Boulevarde Hotel’ and ‘Westfield’. That approval included three roof level signs on the west, south and northern walls of the roof level plant room, approximately 285ft (87m) above the footway.

12. In 1974, DA 90/73 approved an illuminated sign on the eastern wall of the roof level plant room displaying the words ‘Westfield’, approximately 285ft (87m) above the footway.

ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

13. The application has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including consideration of the following matters:

(a) Environmental Planning Instruments and DCPs.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

14. SEPP 64 was gazetted on 16 March 2001 and aims to ensure that outdoor advertising is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of high quality design and finish.



15. Clause 8 of SEPP64 states the following:

A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:

(a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

Assessment Criteria

16. The following table outlines the manner in which the proposed signage addresses the assessment criteria of SEPP64.

Consideration Comment

1. Character of the area

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

Yes. The proposed signage will be attached to a commercial building within an area characterised by similar uses and therefore, the sign is compatible.

Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

There are several buildings in proximity to the site that have similar high level signage and the proposal is consistent with existing signage in the area.

2. Special areas

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

No. The proposal conserves the heritage significance of heritage properties in close proximity and will not unduly impact on their settings and views within the conservation area.

3. Views and vistas

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

No. The plant screens and signage are not freestanding and are attached to the north, east and west elevations of the existing plant room on the roof of the building and do not interrupt important views or vistas.

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

No. As above.




Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

Yes, the site is one of the tallest buildings in the immediate area and the proposed signage is positioned in front of the roof level plant room walls and will not obstruct or impinge on views to other signage in the area.

4. Streetscape, setting or landscape

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

Yes. The proposed signage includes individual letters attached to perforated plantroom screens which are fixed to the east, west and north elevations of the plant room walls at roof level. The scale and proportion of each of the signs is relative to the size of the existing plant room walls on the selected elevations.

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

Yes. The signage lettering will be internally illuminated and in particular at night time will add visual interest to the city’s night skyline.

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

The proposal includes removing all existing steel frames from the previous signs approved in the 1970s and repairing any old fixings to clean up the appearance of the plant room area in preparation for the new screens and signage.

Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

Yes, the proposed signage will be affixed to perforated screens to conceal plant rooms behind at roof level hiding unsightly air-conditioning units and the like.

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

Due to the height of the existing building, and the proposed location of the signage attached to the roof level plant room, the signage will protrude above street tree canopies below and lower buildings. However, the signage will not sit higher than the existing plant room walls of the existing building and is acceptable.

Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

No.




5. Site and building

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

Yes. The scale and design of the signage is in proportion to the size, built form and uses within the existing building which is a 26 storey, 93m high commercial building.

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

Yes. As above.

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

Yes. As above.

6. Associated devices & logos with advertisements & advertising structures

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

The signage has been designed as an integrated product. Internally illuminated lettering is proposed with all cables and wiring concealed within the signage structure.

7. Illumination

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

No. Standard conditions are imposed which ensure that the lighting meets the relevant Australian Standards so as not to cause nuisance or negatively affect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

No. As above.

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

No. As above.

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

No.

Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

No.

8. Safety

Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

No. A condition has been imposed to ensure that the signs are erected in a secure and safe manner.




Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

No. As above.

Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

No. As above.

17. The proposed signage is not consistent with the aims and objectives of Clause 3 of SEPP64 and as such, is not supported.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (Deemed SEPP)

18. The site is located within the designated hydrological catchment of Sydney Harbour and is subject to the provisions of the above SREP.

19. The Sydney Harbour Catchment Planning Principles must be considered in the carrying out of development within the catchment. The key relevant principles include:

(a) protect and improve hydrological, ecological and geomorphologic processes;

(b) consider cumulative impacts of development within the catchment;

(c) improve water quality of urban runoff and reduce quantity and frequency of urban run-off; and

(d) protect and rehabilitate riparian corridors and remnant vegetation.

20. The site is within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and eventually drains into the Harbour. However, the site is not located in the Foreshores Waterways Area or adjacent to a waterway and therefore, with the exception of the objective of improved water quality, the objectives of the SREP are not applicable to the proposed development. The development is consistent with the controls contained with the deemed SEPP.

Sydney LEP 2012

21. The site is located within the B4 Mixed Used zone. The proposed screens and signage is in association with an existing commercial tenant within the building and is permissible with consent.

22. The relevant matters to be considered under Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the proposed development are outlined below.



Compliance Table

Development Control Compliance Comment

4.3 Height of Buildings No A maximum height of 50m is permitted.

The existing building has a height of 93m.

To the top of the proposed signage it is 89m. See discussion under the heading Issues.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio Yes The proposal is for plant room screens and signage and does not change the existing GFA of the building.

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Yes The proposal seeks to vary the development standard prescribed under Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings.

See discussion under the heading Issues.

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes The subject site is not a heritage item and it is not located within a heritage conservation area. However, it is bounded to the north with the Woolloomooloo Conservation Area (C71), so the provisions of the Clause are applicable to the site. There are some locally listed heritage items to the north, south and west of the site. It is considered that generally, the proposal does not impact the heritage significance of those items and will not unduly impact on their settings and views within the conservation area.



Compliance Table


Division 4 Design excellence

Yes The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Urban Design Specialist who has requested further details to be submitted by way of condition to ensure that the appearance of the plant room screens and signage is more in keeping with the existing building. Details of the perforation to the screens over the plant rooms are to be submitted including size of perforation and a sample of the material to be used. In addition, the proposed colour of the screens in Monument Grey is not considered appropriate as it is too dark. A lighter colour is recommended which more closely matches the colour of the walls of the plant room section of the existing building at roof level. Details of an alternative, lighter colour are to be submitted for approval along with the material sample. Subject to the above recommended conditions, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of this provision.

Sydney DCP 2012

23. The relevant matters to be considered under Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 for the proposed development are outlined below.

2. Locality Statements – William Street

The subject site is located in the William Street locality. The proposed screens and signage are considered to be in keeping with the unique character of the area and design principles in that it retains and preserves views to the Kings Cross skyline and as a significant tenant within the subject commercial building, helps promote William Street as a high quality commercial spine with appropriate commercial uses.



3. General Provisions


3.2 Defining the Public Domain

Yes The proposed development will not impede views or impact existing sun access to publicly accessible spaces.

3.9 Heritage Yes Discussed above under Clause 5.10.

3.16 Signage and Advertising

Partly - acceptable

With regard to business identification/building name signs, the DCP generally requires the following: (i) The signage must relate to an approved

use for the building and is compatible in scale with the architectural design of the building;

(ii) Illumination (including cabling) of signs is to be concealed, integral with the sign, or provided by means of carefully designed and located remote or spot lighting;

(iii) A maximum of three building name signs are permitted on building elevations including a maximum of two signs with no more than one sign per elevation near the roof or parapet; and one at or near the building’s major entry;

(iv) Building name signs at or near roof level or near the parapet are to be located in the following places:

(a) at the pedestrian entry to the building, or

(b) at the building parapet or on the walls of a rooftop plant room, but only where the sign will not cover or obscure parts of the building that are significant elements of the building’s architectural design.

(v) Signs at roof level are to be:

(a) be no higher than one typical floor of the building, and are to be in scale with the plant room wall upon which the sign is affixed;





(b) not be positioned on glazed portions of the building elevations, regardless of whether or not that glazing is a window or is wall cladding;

(c) be composed of individual letters fixed to the building and not placed on any backing material; and

(d) where placed on a building component, such as a plant room wall or louver panel, be of a height and size to suit the scale and proportion of that building component.

While the advertising clause within the DCP generally promotes the main facades of buildings from the first floor to the rooftop or parapet to be uncluttered and generally free of signage, the current proposal seeks to remove all the existing steel frames from the previous signs approved in the 1970s, repairing any old fixings and installing new support structures. Historically, signage has been displayed on the north, east and west elevations in front of the roof plant walls and the current proposal seeks signage in the same location. The applicant has provided a breakdown of all the tenancies in the building and the level/area occupied by each tenant. ‘Henning Harders’ are a significant tenant within the building occupying all of Level 15 and part of Level 9, equating to a total area of approximately 1137sq.m. The proposed orange colour for the illuminated lettering is acceptable and the plant room screens are compatible with the materials, colours and finishes of the existing building, subject to conditions. All caballing and associated wiring will be concealed within the advertising structure.





It is noted that the southern (front) facade of the building is within the William Street signage precinct however, the north, east and west elevations are not, which is where the proposed signage will be displayed on the building. Notwithstanding, the proposed signage is integrated with the architecture of the building, its illumination will not unduly impact on the heritage items in proximity to the site, and the signage directly relates to a commercial tenant within the building, which reinforces William Street as a commercial area. The proposed signage generally meets the objectives and requirements for signs outlined under the Clause and the proposal is supported in this instance.

ISSUES

Height

24. The application does not comply with the Sydney LEP 2012 Clause 4.3 building height requirement of 50m. The proposed height of the signage is 89m, measured to the top of the signage structure. The existing building has a height of 93m, measured to the top of the roof plant.



Figure 12: Proposed west elevation

25. The applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Sydney LEP 2012 to seek an exception to the height development standard. Clause 4.6 of Sydney LEP 2012 allows Council to vary a development standard in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes.

26. In order to demonstrate whether strict numeric compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance, the proposed exception to the building height development standard has been considered against the objectives and provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Sydney LEP 2012.

27. As required under Clauses 4.6(3) (a) and (b), the applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard as follows:

(a) notwithstanding the height non-compliance, the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard and the zone;

(b) a precedent for signage in the proposed location has been set. The proposed signage is located where previous signage was approved on the building and considered appropriate for the site by Council, justifying a degree of flexibility in this instance;

(c) the existing building is higher than the proposed signage and therefore, is appropriate having regard to the site and its context; and

(d) the proposed development promotes the sharing of views and will not unduly impact on views or result in any adverse impact on adjoining properties.

Approximate 50m height control



28. The applicant’s written request sufficiently demonstrates that strict compliance with the building height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance. Subject to submission of details relating to the plant room screen perforation and an alternative, lighter colour for the screens (discussed under Division 4 above), the proposed signage is of a scale, proportion and design that is considered to be appropriate to the existing building and location, and permitted by the signage context in the DCP.

29. The subject property is located within the B4 Mixed Used zone. The proposed development meets the objectives of the zone as the proposed development is in association with a significant commercial tenant within the building which will continue to support the viability of the city centre. The development is also considered to be consistent with objectives of the building height provision as it is appropriate to the condition of the site and its context and does not unreasonably overshadow or reduce existing views of surrounding development.

30. A search of Council records has been carried out and the approved plans have been sighted, which confirms that the proposed signage is of a similar size and design to that previously approved in the same locations. The application includes removal of existing unsightly steel frames left over from the old signs, repairing any old fixings and installing new support structures to Engineer’s details. The proposed signage is to be located on the north, east and west elevations of the roof plant section of the building. A condition is recommended as part of this consent that all of the existing steel frames from previously approved signage is removed as part of this application, including the southern side of the roof plant section of the commercial building, to improve its overall appearance.

31. It is considered that there is sufficient planning grounds to justify the proposed variation to the building height provision of the LEP and that strict compliance with the requirement is unreasonable or unnecessary in this instance and it is recommended that a Clause 4.6 exception be supported.

32. As discussed above, the proposed height of the building signage is considered to be compatible with the existing and future characteristics of the area and can be supported in this instance.

Draft City of Sydney Development Control Plan - Signs and Advertisements 2015

33. On the 14 November 2016, Council resolved to approve the Draft Development Control Plan - Signs and Advertisements 2015. The Draft includes a number of changes to the existing controls including amendments to top-of-building and building name signs.

34. The following are the main changes relevant to the proposal:

(a) a building identification sign should not be higher than 15m above the existing ground level or the top of any existing parapet, whichever is lower, unless the sign is for a building on land zoned B8 Metropolitan Centre only or B3 Commercial Core;

(b) in William Street signage precinct, signage is not to be located above awning level. Where no awning exists, signage is not to exceed a height of 3.5m above ground level (existing);



(c) top of building signs allocated to a significant tenant within the building must be removed within 3 months of the relevant circumstances changing; and

(d) where the consent authority is of the opinion that an illuminated sign is expected to generate high levels of energy based on size, hours of operation or illumination source, the signage is to be powered by renewable energy of a capacity to provide the energy required to illuminate the sign or the purchase of a renewable energy product offered by an electricity supplier equivalent to the estimated annual amount of electricity used.

35. The proposed building signs are higher than 15m and are not located on a building within either the B8 Metropolitan Centre or B3 Commercial Core. The Draft states that a development application that does not comply with the standards of the DCP can be approved, provided it meets the aims and criteria of the SEPP and objectives of the DCP.

36. William Street is a signage precinct with similar high-level signage in close proximity to the subject building. The proposed signage exhibits design excellence, subject to conditions. For the reasons outlined earlier in the report, the signage generally meets the aims and criteria of the SEPP and objectives of the DCP and is acceptable in this instance.

37. Conditions have been imposed to require the signage to be removed within three months of the lease agreement for Henning Harders (Australia) Pty Ltd ending within the building; or Henning Harders (Australia) Pty Ltd no longer being a significant/primary tenant who occupy the largest gross floor area tenancy within the building.

38. Given the size of the signage occupying three elevations of the building and nightly illumination, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the signage to be powered by renewable energy, in accordance with sustainability objectives.

Other Impacts of the Development

39. The proposed development is capable of complying with the BCA.

40. It is considered that the proposal will have no significant detrimental effect relating to environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.

Suitability of the site for the Development

41. The proposal is of a nature in keeping with the overall function of the site.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

42. The conditions of other sections of Council have been included in the proposed conditions.

43. The application was discussed with the Building Services Unit and Environmental Health who advised that the proposal is acceptable subject to the recommended conditions.



44. The application was also discussed with the City’s Urban Design Specialist who raised concerns about the perforation of the plant room screens and their proposed Monument Grey colour. Conditions have been imposed requiring further detail of the perforation to the screens and an alternative, lighter colour to be submitted to better match the existing colour of the plant room walls at the top section of the building.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

45. Sydney Observatory were consulted about the proposal and raised no objections. They did however make recommendations on the longer term sustainability elements of illuminated signage, which have been referred to Council’s Policy Unit for consideration.

Notification, Advertising and Delegation (No Submissions Received)

46. In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Sydney DCP 2012, the proposed development is required to be notified. As such, the application was notified for a period of 14 days between 7 September 2016 and 22 September 2016; no submissions were received.

PUBLIC INTEREST

47. It is considered that the proposal will have no detrimental effect on the public interest, subject to appropriate conditions being proposed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

S94 CONTRIBUTIONS

48. The development is exempt from the provisions of the City of Sydney Development Contributions Plan 2015.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

49. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

CONCLUSION

50. The proposal generally complies with the aims and objectives of the relevant policies and planning controls.

51. Although the proposal does not comply with the Height development standard, it is considered that strict compliance with the control is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the proposed variation to the Height control under Clause 4.6 of Sydney LEP 2012 is supported.

52. The proposal is not considered to generate adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties in the circumstances of the case.

GRAHAM JAHN, AM Director City Planning, Development and Transport (Maria O’Donnell, Specialist Planner)

Planning and Development Committee - 05 December 2016 - Item … · 2016. 12. 5. · DEVELOPMENT...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Development Committee - 05 December 2016 - Item … · 2016. 12. 5. · DEVELOPMENT...