Planning and Development Committee - 14 November 2016 ... · FILE NO: D/2016/916 DEVELOPMENT...

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE 14 NOVEMBER 2016

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 63, 65A, 69-71 HARRIS STREET AND 14-16 MOUNT STREET PYRMONT 08590111

ITEM 7. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 63, 65A, 69-71 HARRIS STREET AND 14-16 MOUNT STREET PYRMONT

FILE NO: D/2016/916

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: D/2016/916

SUMMARY

Date of Submission:

6 July 2016 (amended plans received 27 September 2016 and 6 October 2016.)

Applicant:

City Plan Services

Architect:

Tzannes Associates

Developer: TWT Property Group Pty Ltd

Owner: Sydney City Investments PTY LTD

Cost of Works: $39,050,000.00

Proposal Summary:

The application seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling development including 14 dwellings in 3 rows of attached terraces with associated landscaping and basement car parking.

The extent of excavation proposed may have triggered the requirements for Integrated Development, however, given that detailed borehole testing was not submitted with the application, it could not be confirmed whether any aquifer interference would occur. The matter was referred to Water NSW for comment. Should aquifer interference occur approval will be required from Water NSW prior to commencement of works. This is reflected in the recommended conditions of consent. On 6 October 2016, the applicant removed 63 Harris Street, Pyrmont from the application and will no longer seek approval for alterations and additions to the heritage item.



Proposal Summary (continued):

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy, which resulted in a total of 26 submissions. The objections relate to solar access, overdevelopment, height, increased car parking and traffic, construction impacts, view loss, privacy, noise, waste management, economic viability of the proposal, heritage and archaeological impacts.

The concerns raised in the submissions have been addressed within this report. The development is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances. Preliminary concerns identified in the assessment included:

• bulk and scale of the Mount Street dwellings, • building height; • solar access; • potential sightlines and privacy between the

rows of dwellings; • vehicular access off Harris Street; and • waste management.

Amended plans and additional information has been submitted to address these issues.

Summary Recommendation:

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

Development Controls:

(i) State Environmental Planning Policy 55

(ii) State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX)

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

(iv) Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Gazetted 12 December 2012, as amended)

(v) Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (in force on 12 December 2012, as amended)

Attachments:

A - Conditions of Consent

B - Architectural Drawings

C - Landscape Plans

D - Photomontages



RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/916, subject to the conditions as detailed in Attachment A to the subject report.



BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. The site is located on the western side of Harris Street to the south of John Street with a secondary street frontage to Mount Street. The subject site is described as 63, 65A, 69-71 Harris Street and 14-16 Mount Street, Pyrmont.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the site 65A, 69-71 Harris Street and 14-16 Mount Street, Pyrmont, excluding 63 Harris Street (outlined in black)

2. The site does not present a contiguous frontage to Harris Street as 65 and 67 Harris Street do not form part of the site as it presents to Harris Street. The site does however have a single frontage to Mount Street. The site is an irregular shape resulting in a total area of 2,198.9sqm (excluding 63 Harris Street). The site slopes approximately 8.66 metres from the Mount Street boundary down to the Harris Street boundary.

3. Currently occupying the site is a two storey terrace dwelling listed as a local heritage item (63 Harris Street), a brick garage with a metal roof occupying 65A Harris Street and the remainder of the site is a disused asphalt open air car park accessed via Mount Street. A batter of sandstone walls and overgrown vegetation slopes from the asphalt car park down to the Harris Street frontage.

4. As identified previously the applicant has removed 63 Harris Street, Pyrmont (Lot 1 DP 502738) from the development and as such no longer forms part of the site for the purpose of this development assessment. 63 Harris Street forms part of the terrace group including interiors at 63-65 Harris Street, Pyrmont, listed as a local heritage item within Schedule 5 of the Sydney LEP 2012.

5. The site adjoins the following local heritage items but is not within a heritage conservation area:



(a) (11221) 67 Harris Street – a terrace house including interiors;

(b) (I1219) 61 Harris Street- Terminus Hotel including interiors and courtyard located to the north with a secondary street frontage to John Street;

(c) (I1237) 79A John Street – Former Pyrmont Public School which functions as the Pyrmont Community Centre located directly to the north of the site with an immediate boundary to the centre and its outdoor playgrounds;

(d) (I1240) 5-15 Mount Street – terrace group including interiors located on the western side of Mount Street;

(e) (I1236) 75-79 John Street – Former Quarryman’s Arms Hotel on the corner of Mount Street and John Street;

(f) (I1241) 30-52 Mount Street – Former CSR Manager’s House including interiors and grounds located immediately to the south of the site;

(g) (I1225) 94-136 Harris Street - Former woolstore “Shute, Bell, Badgery and Lumby” including interiors located on the opposite side of Harris Street; and

(h) (I1223) 82 Harris Street -Former bakery including interiors, cartway and courtyard also located to the east on the opposite side of Harris Street.

6. The neighbouring residential dwellings occupying 65 and 67 Harris Street have rear boundaries adjoining the site and are identified as local heritage items.

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

Figure 2: Site viewed from Harris Street looking north



Figure 3: Site viewed from Harris Street looking south. Terminus Hotel at the intersection with John Street

Figure 4: Site viewed from Harris Street looking west



Figure 5: Site viewed from Mount Street looking east

Figure 6: Looking north along Mount Street



Figure 7: Looking south along Mount Street

Figure 8: Southern side boundary looking east from Mount Street

Mount Street

SITE



Figure 9: Northern side boundary with the Pyrmont Community Centre looking east from Mount Street

Figure 10: internal site view looking north towards Pyrmont Community Centre

Mount Street

SITE



Figure 11: internal site view looking east towards Harris Street and The Star

Figure 12: internal site view looking west towards Mount Street



Figure 13: view looking east towards Mount Street from Cadigal Avenue

8. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial and community buildings. Harris

Street provides a mixture of retail and commercial uses activating the street interspersed with 2 and 3 storey residential dwellings. On the opposite side of Harris Street is the 5 storey former woolstore “Shute, Bell, Badgery and Lumby” building which was recently approved for refurbishment as a commercial building. An at grade car park adjoins the wool store building with 2 and 3 storey building providing residential and commercial uses located on the corner of Harris and John Streets.

9. Further south along Harris Street is 2 and 3 storey Land and Housing Corporation residential developments presenting 2-3 storey attached dwellings and Council’s Maybanke Recreation Centre including basketball courts fronting Harris Street.

10. The 2 storey Terminus Hotel is located on the same side of Harris Street fronting the intersection with John Street.

11. The Pyrmont Community Centre building with bell tower fronts John Street and has a northern boundary with the site.

12. The neighbouring Mount Street frontage is dominated by single, 2 and 3 storey attached residential dwellings. Mount Street is a cul-de-sac with the former CSR Manager’s House and grounds adjoining the southern boundary of the site. The land with a southern boundary to the site is owned by Land and Housing Corporation.



Figure 14: internal site view looking south towards 30-52 Mount Street and the CSR Manager’s House

Figure 15: Terminus Hotel on corner of John Street and Harris Street



Figure 16: 73-83 Harris Street immediately to the south of the site

Figure 17: 80-84 Harris Street immediately to the east of the site. The open air car park and 100 Harris Street further along Harris Street



Figure 18: 17-29 Mount Street opposite the site

Figure 19: Residential dwellings along Mount Street immediately to the south of the site



Figure 20: 5-15 Mount Street immediately opposite the site to the west

Figure 21: Pyrmont Community Centre and Bell Tower viewed from John Street at the intersection with Mount Street



Figure 22: Northern site boundary viewed from the playground of the Pyrmont Community Centre

Figure 23: Shop top housing development on the opposite corner of Harris Street and John Street.



PROPOSAL

13. The application seeks consent for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling development including 14 dwellings in 3 rows of attached terraces with associated landscaping and basement car parking.

14. For the purposes of this development assessment the application has been described as 3 separate building forms, including:

(a) the Harris Street dwellings;

(b) the Mid-Block Terraces; and

(c) the Mount Street Terraces.

15. Figure 24 below identifies level changes through the site which result in the basement level for the Mount Street Terraces aligning with the street level of Harris Street. Furthermore, the kitchen, living and dining areas for the Mid-Block Terraces and Mount Street Terraces are below Mount Street but are two storeys above Harris Street.

Figure 24: long section through the site

Harris Street Dwellings

16. The existing vehicular crossing to Harris Street will be reduced in size to a single crossing to provide access to the car park which aligns with Harris Street level providing 14 residential spaces and 2 visitor spaces. The car parking area also includes waste storage, a deep soil zone, individual lift access for the mid-row and Mount Street terraces and storage areas. Stair access is also provided from the car parking area to the rear yards of the new dwellings fronting Harris Street.

17. Immediately adjoining the driveway will be the new entry foyer including stairs and a lift to the mid-row terraces.

HARRIS STREET

MOUNT STREET



18. Two new 2 storey dwellings with attic roof forms present to Harris Street identified as H2 and H3. The H1 dwelling identified on the plans is 63 Harris Street which has been removed from the application. The dwellings will present a scale sympathetic with the existing dwellings fronting Harris Street. A basement storage area will be provided below the living areas for H2 and H3. The entry to the dwellings is directly accessed from Harris Street with an open plan living and kitchen area opening on to a rear courtyard. The first floor of the Harris Street dwellings provides 2 bedrooms, study and bathroom. The roof forms include attic master bedrooms with juliet balconies to Harris Street and rear balconies overlooking their private open spaces.

Mid-Block Terraces

19. The mid-block terraces include 6 attached 4 storey dwellings with attic roof forms. The kitchen, living and dining areas are accessed from their respective private open spaces via the common walkway. This level is 3 levels below Mount Street and 2 levels above Harris Street. Figure 24 identifies the staggered design of the development. The first floor of the mid-block terraces includes a study/bedroom with void to the living area below. The third level which aligns with Mount Street provides the main bedrooms and ensuites. The fourth level provides 2 bedrooms to each terrace with ensuites and balconies facing east to their respective courtyards. The upper level contained within the roof forms provide rumpus/studio areas with balconies facing Harris Street. The internal sightlines within the development are addressed within the issues section.

Mount Street Terraces

20. The development proposes 6 attached 3 storey terraces to Mount Street with attic roof forms within a modern curved design. The existing driveway crossings along Mount Street will be removed and replaced with kerb and guttering. The car parking area underneath the Mount Street Terraces presents as an oversized single basement level however it is at street level adjoining Harris Street. The kitchen, living and dining areas are located 1 level below Mount Street opening onto private courtyards. The entries from Mount Street provide access to other levels and a void to the dining area below. The first floors contain 2 bedrooms each with ensuites. The second floors contain 2 bedrooms each with ensuites. The roof forms contain rumpus/studio rooms with rear balconies.

21. Amendments were provided to the proposal on 27 September and 6 October 2016, providing the following amendments:

(a) altering the Mount Street dwellings to provide finished floor levels (FFL) to address the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy for minimum flood planning levels resulting in a reduction in the height of the roof form by 300mm from 5.4m to 5.1m. This maintains a maximum building height of 14.7m below the 15m maximum height limit;

(b) the introduction of the sandstone banding to the ground floor of the Mount Street dwellings is continued along the northern and southern side elevations as they present to the Pyrmont Community Centre and the NSW Land and Housing Corporation development to better articulate the 3 storey scale of the terrace dwellings; and

(c) the roof form of the end terraces (M1 and M6) fronting Mount Street have also been revised to reduce the vertical scale of the roof form as presented to the northern and southern side boundaries.



Figure 25: east elevation to Harris Street

Figure 26: photomontage to Harris Street

SITE SITE



Figure 27: west elevation to Mount Street

Figure 28: photomontage to Mount Street

HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

22. Pre-DA discussions were held with Council Officers in March and May 2016 considering options for a terrace development with a midblock residential flat building. This option was modified in preference for a grand terrace scale development as proposed.

23. The applicant conducted community consultation meetings prior to the lodgement of their application. The City was not engaged in this consultation process. The documentation accompanying the application identified that the residential flat building option was discussed with the community as part of the consultation process.



Figure 29: Pre-DA option for mid-block residential flat building

ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

24. 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 55—Remediation of Land

25. The aim of SEPP 55 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.

26. The application was accompanied by a Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation, prepared by “Douglas Partners Pty Ltd” Project No: 85181.00.R.001.Rev1, dated 29 June 2016 and a Preliminary Geotechnical Constraints Report, prepared by “Asset Geotechnical Engineering Pty Ltd”, Ref: 3703-R2-Rev1, dated 18 May 2016. The City’s Environmental Health Unit is satisfied that subject to conditions, the site can be made suitable for the proposed use.

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

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

28. 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.

29. 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.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

30. A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application.

31. The BASIX certificate lists measures to satisfy BASIX requirements which have been incorporated in the proposal. A condition is recommended ensuring the measures detailed in the BASIX certificate are implemented.

Sydney LEP 2012

32. The site is located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed use is defined as multi-dwelling housing and is permissible within the zone.

33. 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 Yes A maximum height of 15m is permitted.

A maximum height of 14.7m is proposed. This maximum height includes the FFL to address the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy. See discussion under the heading Issues.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio Yes A maximum FSR of 1.51 is permitted. The site area excluding 63 Harris Street is 2,198.9sqm. A maximum FSR permitted is 3,298.35sqm.

A FSR of 1.5:1 is proposed. See discussion under the heading Issues.



Compliance Table


5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

Yes The proposal is acceptable in terms of tree preservation as the proposal will have no impact on any trees. There are no trees on site requiring retention. Preservation of street trees has been conditioned within Attachment A.

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes The subject site previously contained a heritage item being 63 Harris Street, Pyrmont. The site is surrounded by heritage items but is not contained within a conservation area. See discussion under the heading Issues.

Part 6 Local provisions - height and floor space

Division 4 Design excellence

Yes The scale of development transitions from the surrounding single, 2 and 3 storey attached dwelling houses on Mount Street. The scale of development to Harris Street is sympathetic with the rhythm of the immediately adjoining dwellings remaining well below the 15m height limit permitted to Harris Street. Subject to appropriate conditions addressing materials and finishes, the proposal satisfies the requirements of this provision. See discussion under the heading Issues.

Part 7 Local provisions—general

Division 1 Car parking ancillary to other development

Yes A maximum of 17 car parking spaces are permitted.

16 car parking spaces are proposed. (1 space per dwelling and 2 visitor spaces).

7.13 Affordable Housing Yes A condition has been applied. See financial implications section.



Compliance Table


7.14 Acid Sulphate Soils Yes The site is identified as containing Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soil. A condition has been recommended to address acid sulphate soils on site as insufficient borehole testing has been undertaken to confirm whether there will be any interaction with the water table.

7.15 Flood planning Yes The proposal is required to address the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy which required amended FFL. This was addressed in the amended plans submitted for the application.

7.16 Airspace operations Yes The proposed development is below the Obstacle Limitation Surface as shown on the Obstacle Limitation Surface Map for the Sydney Airport.

7.17 Development in areas subject to airport noise

N/A The proposed development is outside the nominated ANEF Contours. As such, a requirement to meet AS2021-2000 in relation to interior noise levels is not required.

Sydney DCP 2012

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

2. Locality Statements – Ultimo/Pyrmont

The subject site is located in the Pyrmont Point locality. The proposed development for 14 dwellings is considered to be in keeping with the unique character of the area and design principles in that it maintains the cascading form from Mount Street to Harris Street. The proposal does seek to excavate the sandstone within the site but will depending on the grade of the sandstone, incorporate it into the materials and finishes for the development. The height of the development is compliant with the development standards and will not impact on key sightlines to the Pyrmont Community Centre bell tower from the public domain of John Street. The site does have an active street frontage along Harris Street however the fractured nature of this frontage and its distance from the commercial centre to the south results in an active frontage being unreasonable in this instance. The scale of development along Harris Street is sympathetic with the adjoining heritage items.



3. General Provisions


3.1 Public Domain Elements

Yes The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the public domain by providing an integrated built form along the Harris Street frontage. A reduction in the number of vehicular crossings from 2 to none will improve street parking opportunities on Mount Street. The vehicular access from Harris Street is supported even through Harris Street is identified on the Pedestrian Priority Map.

A Public Art strategy has been proposed along the northern and southern site boundaries, and to the entry foyer. Given access issues it is recommended that any art be restricted to the entry foyer and further consultation occur with Council Officers.

See discussion under the heading Issues.

3.2 Defining the Public Domain

Yes The proposed development will enhance the public domain and will not unreasonably impact on sun access to publicly accessible spaces. The site does have an active frontage requirement which is addressed in the Issues section.

3.5 Urban Ecology Yes The proposed development does not involve the removal of any trees and will not adversely impact on the local urban ecology.

3.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development

Yes The proposal will not have unacceptable impacts on the environment and satisfies BASIX requirements.

3.7 Water and Flood Management

Yes The amended design has address the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy.

3.8 Subdivision, Strata Subdivision and Consolidation

N/A Subdivision is not proposed as part of this application.



3. General Provisions


3.9 Heritage Yes The site adjoins a number of local heritage items. The design and scale of the development retains the heritage value and significance of the adjoining items. See discussion under the heading Issues.

3.11 Transport and Parking

Yes Parking is compliant with the LEP maximums. Adequate space is provided in the basement for each dwelling to store bicycles. Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended to address the provision of parking.

3.13 Social and Environmental Responsibilities

Yes The proposed development provides adequate passive surveillance and is generally designed in accordance with the CPTED principles. Secure individual entries are provided to the terraces fronting both Harris Street and Mount Street without the creation of concealed or recessed entries.

3.14 Waste

Yes A condition has been recommended for the proposed development to comply with the relevant provisions of the City of Sydney Code for Waste Minimisation in New Developments 2005.

4. Development Types

4.1 Single dwellings, terraces and dual occupancies


4.1.1 Building height Yes A maximum of four storeys is permitted over the site with a 3 storey street frontage height control to Mount Street. There is no specific street frontage height control to Harris Street.

See discussion under the heading Issues.






4.1.2 Building setbacks Acceptable The proposal retains the nil front setbacks of the adjoining dwellings to Harris Street and Mount Street resulting in a consistent building alignment to both streets.

4.1.3 Residential amenity Acceptable The amenity impacts on future residents are considered acceptable. The proposal will not have unreasonable impacts on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

The following elements have been discussed further in the Issues section: solar impact, private open space, and privacy. A total of 214sqm of deep soil is provided on site which is 114sqm less than the 15% requirement. The rear private open spaces of each terrace exceeds 16sqm and the 3m dimension requirement.

4.1.5 Roof alterations and additions

Conditioned to comply

The juliet balconies to Harris Street are not in keeping with Council’s controls for dormer projections and attic rooms. The balconies are recommended to be deleted.

4.1.7 Fences Yes New fencing between the private courtyards will not impact on the streetscapes and will provide reasonable amenity to the private open spaces.

4.1.8 Balconies, verandahs and decks

Yes The balconies proposed to the master bedrooms on the Harris Street dwellings are recommended for deletion to reduce overlooking to adjoining rear yards.

The midblock terraces includes level changes, fencing, landscaping and privacy louvers to provide reasonable privacy to dwellings fronting Harris Street. Conditions have been recommended fixing the privacy louvers to the bedroom levels to reduce opportunities for overlooking to the rear yards of the Harris Street properties.






4.1.9 Car parking Acceptable The proposal retains vehicle access from Harris Street and removes all vehicular access from Mount Street. Conditions of consent are recommended to ensure car parking is designed and construction in accordance with Australian standards.

ISSUES

Height, Scale and Bulk

35. The proposal for a multi-dwelling development presenting as 3 rows of terraces and is compliant with the floor space ratio and height of buildings development standards contained within the Sydney LEP 2012.

36. The proposal achieves the objectives of the FSR and height of building development standards. The height of development is appropriate to the condition of the site and its context in that it transitions from the single, 2 and 3 storey dwellings along Mount Street and Harris Street to the CSR Managers House located to the south and the bell tower of the Pyrmont Community Centre to the north. The height of the buildings progressively step down the site to Harris Street allowing key sightlines to the bell tower to be maintained from the public domain.

37. The density of development is reasonable. The design presents 3 distinct rows of terrace dwellings which breaks the visual bulk and scale of the development. The proposal is a new development that reflects the desired character of the locality in which it is located and minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of that locality by providing a compatible density of development to Harris Street which maintains the rhythm of the residential developments. The 3 storey presentation to Mount Street with the modern dormer windows within the curved roof form maintains the vertical proportions of the terrace character in the street.

38. Clause 4.1.1 SDCP 2012 includes an objective for the street frontage height in storeys requirement to ensure development reinforces the existing and desired neighbourhood character with an appropriate height in storeys and street frontage height in storeys. The subject site has a 4 storey height control and a 3 storey street height control to Mount Street. The proposal presents a 3 storey with attic form to Mount Street and a 2 storey with attic form to Harris Street in context with the adjoining building typologies. The provisions of this Clause also require consideration of the following:



(a) reinforces the existing and desired neighbourhood character;

The character of the areas is fine grain residential development, with high quality heritage buildings interspersed with local commercial and community uses. The proposal mirrors the residential scale of development in the locality and the respective streetscapes.

(b) is consistent with the character, scale and form of surrounding buildings in heritage conservation areas;

The scale of the buildings in Harris Street is replicated within the development as demonstrated in the Harris Street elevations and photomontages (see Figures 24 and 25). 17-29 Mount Street is the most recent development within Mount Street approved by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in September 2001. The maximum parapet height of the 3 storey attached terrace dwellings is 10.42m. The proposed development has a parapet height of 9.3m to Mount Street. The visual height of the proposed development is perceived within the curved roof form which is 5.1m above the 3 storey street wall. To address the vertical proportions of this roof form the end terraces M1 and M6 have angles roof forms which reduce the scale of the roof form and better articulate the 3 storey street height. (refer to Figure 32 below).

(c) does not detract from the character, and significance of the existing building.

The CSR Managers House to the south is setback from its boundary with the subject site and its curtilage and significance is maintained. The proposal will be visible from John Street as a back drop to the Pyrmont Community Centre and its bell tower. The heritage items fronting Harris Street will not be unreasonably impacted by the proposal with the scale of development maintained to the street. The single and two storey heritage items on the opposite side of Mount Street will not be unreasonably impacted by the height of the development as it presents a transition to the adjoining residential forms.

39. Objections were raised specifically to the bulk and scale of development to Mount Street. Amended plans were received addressing the scale of development through the following changes to provide an improved visual scale for the development within the 15m height limit:

(a) reducing the overall height of the roof form from 5.4m to 5.1m;

(b) angle the northern and southern side elevations of the roof form to reduce the visual extent of the roof when viewed from Mount Street and immediately adjoining allotments; and

(c) continuing the sandstone banding for the Mount Street level along the northern and southern boundaries to break the vertical proportions of the dwellings and introducing an alternative treatment to the boundary walls of the private open spaces to reduce the perceived bulk of the boundary walls.



Figure 30: Existing view of Mount Street looking north

Figure 31: Original proposal viewed from Mount Street looking north



Figure 32: revised proposal viewed from Mount Street looking north

Heritage

40. The site immediately adjoins a number of local heritage items. The proposal generally complies with the relevant aims, objectives and controls of the SLEP 2012 and SDCP 2012. The objectives are to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views. During the notification period submitters objected that the heritage assessment submitted with the application was not comprehensive. The bulk and scale of the proposal will not unreasonably impact on the adjoining heritage items and the materials/finishes proposed including the sandstone banding, reflects the materials presented in the adjoining heritage items. View to local heritage items from the public domain will be maintained, however views of the bell tower from the end of the Mount Street cul-de-sac will be obscured by the development. These sightlines are not considered to be significant.

41. The heritage context has been reasonably addressed through the continuation of the terrace building typology albeit in a modern interpretation. The development provides a transition to both streetscapes and the tilting of the roof form ends to M1 and M6 fronting Mount Street has reduced the apparent scale of the building thereby responding to the bulk and massing of the built form.

42. An objective of Clause 5.10 of the SLEP 2012 is to conserve archaeological sites. Conditions have been recommended to require a permit to be obtained from NSW Heritage prior to excavation of the site to identify and conserve any relics of significance on site.



Design Excellence

43. The proposal was considered by the City’s Design Advisory Panel on 11 October 2016. The Panel noted that the proposal is an exemplary scheme for appropriate urban infill development. The Panel questioned whether there is an opportunity for an at-grade access off Mount Street for the mid-block terraces. Access for the mid-block terraces would impact on the design of the Mount Street terraces and require lift and walkway access to be provided. This design change was not pursued.

44. Overshadowing, solar access, visual and acoustic privacy within the development and to adjoining land has been addressed through amendments to the design and conditions of consent which delete upper level balconies on the Harris Street dwellings. The separation between the terrace forms allows for solar access to land to the south to be adequately maintained.

45. Council’s Urban Designer noted that the southern boundary condition has been amended to vary the materials and finishes along this edge and break up the forms, thus providing greater interest. The applicant has wrapped the sandstone cladding along the terrace portions of the southern boundary at ground floor. The adjacent landscape wall is now to have a scalloped finish that is easy to maintain and provides varying shadow effects throughout the day. These two amendments break up the bulk and provide visual interest, improving the appearance of the southern boundary.

Privacy

46. Objections were raised to the privacy impacts of the development particularly from the mid-row terraces to the rear yards of the Harris Street buildings and the upper level rear balconies from H2 and H3 having direct sightlines into adjoining rear yards.

47. The long section below identifies the use of privacy louvers, planter boxes, landscaping and fencing to ameliorate views into adjoining rear yards from the mid-block terraces. The privacy louvers to balconies to the bedrooms will be conditioned to limit their openings.

48. The dormer windows proposed to Harris Street (H2 and H3) are to be conditioned to remove the balcony elements. While a contemporary dormer with differing proportions is acceptable in new buildings, complying with the SDCP 2012 to create a dormer window that is a window rather than a balcony is important for maintaining a complementary character to the streetscape and nearby heritage items. In addition, the rear balconies off the attic level at the rear of the Harris Street properties (H2 and H3) are also not supported. As an alternative, a full length door with a flush balustrade would enable an open feel to the master bedrooms while providing a form that more closely correlates with rear skillion additions permitted for terraces as per the SDCP 2012.



Figure 33: Long section of the mid-row terraces and sightlines to the Harris Street dwellings

Solar access

49. The shadow diagrams confirm the provision of direct solar access to 1m2 of living area windows for a minimum 2 hours is achieved on 21 June within the development.

50. 26 Mount Street immediately to the south of the site only presents a single storey rear window to its northern boundary with the subject site. This rear single storey window receives solar access at 9am and again at 11am. The rear yard of this property also receives direct solar access during mid-winter.

51. The open space of the CSR Managers House immediately to the south of the site is impacted to varying degrees by overshadowing throughout mid-winter however the minimum solar access required to the open space is provided with 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June onto at least 50% of its private open space.

52. The sites immediately to the west on the opposite side of Mount Street are impacted until midday but are not impacted by the proposal in the afternoon in mid-winter.

53. The rear yards of the Harris Street properties are significantly lower than the mid-block terraces proposed and are surrounded by high sandstone walls enclosing their private open spaces. The sandstone walls self-shadow the rear yards in the morning and the rear yards receive solar access from 12pm till 2pm. The topography of the site and the adjoining rear yards of the Harris Street properties result in acceptable solar access.

54. No impact is presented to the playground and open spaces of the Pyrmont Community Centre as a result of this development.



View Loss

55. View loss is raised as an objection from 2 residents within Cadigal Avenue most notably level 3 of 26 Cadigal Avenue. Access was only obtained to the northern most unit.

56. Whilst the SDCP 2012 makes no provision for the protection of private views, in order to properly assess the impact of the proposal on the existing views of the neighbouring properties, the proposal is assessed below against the planning principles established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the Land and Environment Court decision of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

Assessment of views to be affected

The views affected are from the balcony off the main living areas of level 3 which is the highest level of 26 Cadigal Avenue (see Figure 34). The affected balcony wraps around the living area with a portion facing north and east. The views are of the City skyline towards Barangroo, Centre Point Tower, distant views to North Sydney and iconic views of the Harbour Bridge. Figures 35 to 38 indicate the views obtained from the affected balcony.

Which part of the site is the view available from?

The views are available from the balcony off the main living area.

Extent of the impact in relation to views available

Partial view loss is experienced from the eastern portion of the balcony looking towards Barangaroo and the Harbour Bridge (see Figures 35 and 36). A view to North Sydney and the Harbour Bridger from the northern portion of the balcony is maintained however the view to Barangroo is obstructed (see Figure 37). A view to the east and south towards the City and Centre Point Tower is maintained (see Figure 38).

Reasonableness of proposal causing impact

The proposed development is complaint with the building height and floor space ratio contained within the SLEP 2012. The bulk and scale is considered to be reasonable and the extent of the view loss is only experienced from the eastern portion of the balcony towards the iconic view to the Harbour Bridge and Barangaroo however the iconic view to the Harbour Bridge has been maintained from the northern portion of the balcony. The views to the City, Centre Point Tower and directly to the north are not impacted.

View Loss Conclusions

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory when tested against the planning principles set out in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, as detailed above. The proposed development does not completely remove all views from the affected properties. This assessment concluded that the impact at its worst does impact on the iconic Harbour Bridge view however a view of the Harbour Bridge is maintained from other locations on the balcony which are accessed off the main living area. It is therefore concluded that the proposal does not result in an unreasonable view loss to the neighbouring property.



Figure 34: Neap Map aerial view of the site and the location of the view loss in Cadigal Avenue. Note the balcony off the main living area wraps around the living area.

Figure 35: View from the eastern balcony portion off the living area looking east towards Barangaroo and Harbour Bridge. Red arrow indicates the extent of the subject site.



Figure 36: View north-east from the eastern portion of the balcony off the main living area towards the Harbour Bridge. Red arrow indicate extent of the subject site.

Figure 37: View east from the northern portion of the balcony off the main living area towards the Harbour Bridge and Barangaroo. Red arrow indicates extent of the subject site.



Figure 38: View south towards the City and Centre Point Tower from the eastern portion of the balcony off the main living area.

Active Frontage

57. The site is identified under the SDCP 2012 as having an active frontage requirement along Harris Street. 80% of the frontage is required to be active. However, given the fractured nature of the Harris Street frontage and the immediately adjoining residential uses, an active frontage would not present the best urban design outcome for this distinctly low scale 2 storey residential portion of Harris Street. The commercial core is located further south near the junction of Union Street and Miller Street. The corner of John Street and Harris Street provide an active corner which is well established by the commercial uses and Terminus Hotel. The design of the Harris Street frontage addresses the objectives of the active frontage clause by responding to the scale of the existing built form, providing improved passive surveillance at the street level with legible entries to the individual dwellings from the street. The design reinforces the street edge and contributes positively to the public domain.

58. The site is identified for the provision of a footpath awning. However, given that an awning is not present in the immediately adjoining buildings and the heritage conservation of the adjoining buildings is of significance, the introduction of an awning would detract from the streetscape and present an unreasonable impact to the adjoining heritage items. The photomontages of Harris Street below identify a sympathetic resolution to the fractured street frontage which complements the existing scale and design of the streetscape.



Figure 39: Existing Harris Street frontage looking north

Figure 40: Proposed Harris Street frontage looking north



Deep Soil and Private Open Space

59. Whilst the amount of deep soil is deficient by 115sqm the private open spaces provided at the rear of each terrace is compliant including permeable paving consistent with Clause 4.1.3.5 of the SDCP 2012. The private open spaces are directly accessible from the living areas and the proposal provides reasonable landscaped areas to address stormwater management on site and provide opportunities for mature landscaping.

Excavation and Construction Impacts

60. The excavation of the basement and the construction of both the basement and the proposed terrace dwellings, has the potential to adversely impact on the structural stability of the heritage terraces immediately adjoining the subject site, being 63 Harris Street and 67 Harris Street including the sandstone boundary walls to its respective rear yards. There is also the potential to impact on the sandstone wall adjoining the northern boundary contained within the Pyrmont Community Centre site.

61. While excavation and construction of this nature is not uncommon, given the age and proximity of neighbouring properties, particular care and assessment of the excavation and construction techniques is required to monitor and prevent damage during the works and to ensure the ongoing stability of neighbouring properties.

62. In order to satisfy these requirements, specific conditions are recommended to require the preparation of dilapidation reports of neighbouring properties, and to require a suitably experienced registered engineer to present a detailed work method statement for the excavation and construction, to ensure the long term stability of the adjoining developments.

63. Concern has also been raised regarding the extent of excavation of the sandstone bedrock and the health implications of silica dust on adjoining residents and users of the surrounding community facilities. Conditions have been imposed to address silica dust requiring specific techniques and management systems be employed to address any potential health impacts.

Vehicular Access

64. DCP 2012 Pedestrian Priority Map shows that new vehicle access on Harris Street is not preferred. Harris Street is identified as a priority network for pedestrian and bicycles. Part 3.11.4 (5) of DCP requires developments to achieve a high quality ground level with relationship between the building and public domain. A vehicle access point on this part of Harris Street is not consistent with this provision but is not consider to be unreasonable in this instance.

65. SDCP 2012 Clause 3.11.11 suggests where vehicular access to parking is not accessed from the accessed from the laneway it is to be located on a secondary road.

66. Currently there is no other vehicle access on the western side of Harris Street between John Street and Miller Street apart from the existing crossing to the subject site.

67. The proposal seeks to relocate the existing driveway narrowing it down to a single crossover which will improve the pedestrian movements along Harris Street.



68. Council’s Traffic Engineer has confirmed that the driveway crossing on Harris Street is preferred and is reasonable in this instance as a result of the following circumstances:

(a) the pedestrian and retail activity is much less prominent adjacent to the subject site than that of southern part of Harris Street in between John Street and Miller Street;

(b) the proposed vehicle access will delete two existing driveway crossovers at Harris Street and two vehicle entry gate at Mount Street. This change could reclaim some of the kerbside parking spaces which the City can utilise as on street parking spaces for public use;

(c) the proposed number of parking spaces complies with Council’s requirements, and it is not expected to impact severely to the adjacent road network;

(d) there is substantial elevation difference between Harris Street and Mount Street. This topography does not support vehicular access from Mount Street; and

(e) the existing issues with garbage collection and vehicular movements along Mount Street should not be exacerbated by a driveway crossing for this development.

69. It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed that a cautionary/ giveaway sign on egress from the driveway is provided to improve safety to pedestrian and cyclists.

Other Impacts of the Development

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

71. 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

72. The proposal is of a nature in keeping with the overall function of the site. The premises are in a commercial/residential surrounding and amongst similar uses to that proposed.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

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

74. The application was discussed with the City’s Design Advisory Panel, the Heritage and Urban Design Specialists; Building Services Unit; Environmental Health; Public Domain; Safe City; Surveyors; Transport and Access; Tree Management; Waste Management; who advised that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions.



EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Notification, Advertising and Delegation (Submission(s) Received)

75. In accordance with Schedule 1 the Sydney DCP 2012, the proposed development is required to be notified. As such, the application was notified between 18 July 2016 and 9 August 2016. As a result of this notification, there were 26 submissions received.

76. Submissions were also received from Heritage NSW and Ausgrid. Conditions have been recommended.

(a) The scale of development is out of keeping with the surrounding heritage terraces and would adversely impact on heritage in the immediate area.

Response – The scale of development provides a transition to adjoining developments as envisaged in the SLEP 2012 and SDCP 2012 controls.

(b) The existing terraces on Mount Street will be completely overshadowed and the rear western facing yards of the Harris Street dwelling will be impacted. The shadow diagrams submitted as part of the DA are very misleading. The new development would have serious impact on all surrounding buildings including the health of residents in older buildings to the south.

Response – The proposed development is compliant with the building height controls contained within the SLEP 2012. The documentation submitted with the application has been reviewed and the overshadowing impact as a result of the proposal is considered to be reasonable as discussed within the issues section of the report.

(c) Loss of privacy to the rear yards of the Harris Street dwellings.

Response- The sightlines from the mid-block terraces have been conditioned to include privacy louvers and the balconies off the master bedrooms of the Harris Street dwellings H2 and H3 have been conditioned for removal.

(d) The visual presentation of the mid-block terraces behind the Harris Street dwellings

Response- The mid-block terraces will be visible behind the Harris Street dwellings. However the established street trees will soften the visual impact. The height if the mid-block terraces is below the 15 m height limit applying to the site. The setback of the mid-block dwellings from Harris Street will only present views to the upper level and receding roof form of the terraces which is not unreasonable in the streetscape.

(e) The development is not 4 storeys.

Response- The development does meet the requirement of 4 storeys with an attic roof form.



(f) The Harris Street dormers are not compatible with the heritage listed terraces.

Response- There are varied roof forms within this portion of Harris Street and the introduction of the dormers is not considered to be unreasonable. The Juliet balconies to Harris Street are not supported and have been conditioned to be removed and replaced with fixed windows.

(g) No green space is provided apart from what individual owners may plant within their terraces.

Response – The private open spaces provided on site are designed to provide for mature planting and include permeable paving. The landscaping on site is considered to be reasonable.

(h) The amount of extra cars that will be generated. Mount Street and John Street are not wide enough for the extra cars that will be using both streets, therefore causing a possible safety issue for pedestrians and vehicle drivers/passengers.

Response – The proposed development is for 14 new dwellings and is not considered to generate a high traffic volume. The vehicular traffic will be orientated to Harris Street where access is provided to the basement car parking.

(i) The height of the development on Mount Street including its vertical proportions compared to the ‘low scale character’ of the street is poor. 3 storeys is identified in the documentation however it is significantly higher due to the dormer type rooms on the roof. The 15m height limit is questionable. The Pyrmont Community centre tower is the highest structure, it would be disappointing to have this dwarfed out of sight.

Response – The scale of development is considered to be reasonable and in keeping with the applicable development standards. The terraces will be visible as a backdrop to the centre tower of the community centre but will not unreasonably impact on sightlines to the tower from the public domain.

(j) Concern is raised around a potential "wind tunnel" effect as Mount Street is only 10.5m wide and the 15m high continuous built form is on the boundary.

Response – The built form presentation along the eastern side of Mount Street is not continuous with the stepped frontage of the community centre and the 5.2m wide driveway on the southern site boundary which disrupts the built form fronting Mount Street.

(k) The visual and shadow impacts on the outside play area at the back of the Pyrmont Community Centre.

Response – The proposal will not present any shadow impacts to the outdoor play areas. The balconies from the mid-terrace level will be screened and no windows are proposed along the northern side boundary thereby affording sufficient privacy to the play areas.



(l) The potential risk to the master planning for the Pyrmont peninsula by creating a cramped and closed in suburb through poor town planning for the last remaining undeveloped sites in the area.

Response – The proposal is consistent with the planning controls for the area as identified in the SLEP 2012 and SDCP 2012. The fine grain residential development typology is supported by this proposal and is sympathetic with residential developments in the immediate locality.

(m) The health impacts of dust particularly silica dust as a result of the sandstone excavation. The health impacts to children using the Community Centre. Vibration and structural concerns as a result of the construction process impacting on resident’s health.

Response – Conditions of consent have been recommended regarding silica dust, dilapidation of adjoining structures and health impacts.

(n) Each of the 14 terraces has 4 bedrooms, with only 1 underground car space. This is clearly not enough parking. The 2 visitor car spaces seems extremely inadequate. The additional cars and visitors to the area will place added pressure on already saturated street parking.

Response – A condition will be applied that the development is not eligible to participate in Council’s on-street parking scheme. The proposed parking is consistent with the City’s controls and acceptable given the close proximity to light rail, bus stops on Harris Street and pedestrian links from Pyrmont to the City.

(o) The height of terraces fronting Mount Street is approximately 15.7m which is approaching difference of 2 storeys with the development opposite at 17-29 Mount Street. The documentation is misleading in its description of the development being 3 storeys plus attic. The top section of the building fronting Mount Street is offensive and incoherent to the neighbouring roof forms particularly the excessively high curved roof form.

Response – Amended plans have been submitted reducing the height of the Mount Street roof form and angling the end portions to reduce its perceived scale. The proposed development complies with the maximum building height control contained within the SLEP 2012.

(p) The applicant should be required to salvage sandstone in blocks. Where possible, this iconic sandstone should be used in the development.

Response - Conditions have been recommended to salvage the sandstone on site.

(q) Undergrounding of services and power lines on Mount Street and John Street.

Response – The applicant has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement regarding the undergrounding of services and power lines. There is no specific requirement within the SLEP 2012 and SDCP 2012 for the undergrounding of powerlines in this development.



(r) Encourage more use of natives on private properties.

Response – The planting schedule is considered to be reasonable for the landscaped area proposed within the site.

(s) Noise from construction.

Response – Conditions of consent have been recommended to address hours of construction and noise.

(t) The Council should ensure that truck movements in Mount Street are kept to a minimum and that scarce parking space is not reduced.

Response – A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been recommended in the conditions of consent.

(u) The addition of 2 parking spaces in Mount Street, closest to the PCC be designated for the exclusive use of Disabled users of the Centre.

Response- This matter can be considered by Council’s Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Calming Committee but is not a matter that can be addressed as part of the assessment of this application.

(v) There is extreme disappointment that the Council refused our request to place a copy of the SEE and key documents that depict the elevations and plans at the Pyrmont Community Centre, instead requiring those most directly affected to travel to Glebe.

Response – The notification of the application is consistent with Council’s SDCP 2012. The documentation is provided online and at numerous centre for the public to view.

(w) The documentation submitted does not adequately address the heritage values of adjacent buildings and the heritage significance of the area and does not adequately recognise the archaeological significance of the site.

Response – The proposal presents a reasonable outcome with respect to the heritage significance of adjoining items. Conditions of consent have been recommended to address the archaeological significance of the site requiring a permit to be obtained from Heritage NSW.

(x) The living room, dining and kitchen of the Mount Street dwellings are dominantly underground. The amenity of the new dwellings with living rooms located within a basement level and the kitchen being tucked at the rear with the back wall of the kitchen being more than 8m from the glazing line is questionable.

Response – the Mount Street terraces have voids to the upper level providing reasonable light and ventilation to the kitchen areas. The open plan design immediately adjoining a landscaped terrace areas providing amenity to the levels below Mount Street. The topography of the site also allows the stepping of the built form across the site. The Mid-block terraces have open paved areas adjoining the kitchens which provide for natural light and cross ventilation of the living areas.



(y) The excessive height poses significant view loss to residents on Mount Street as well as residents on Cadigal Avenue. The residents on level 3 of 26 Cadigal Avenue currently have unobstructed view to the harbour bridge over the existing Mount Street dwellings. The proposed building blocks on Mount Street with its extensive roof element will most likely block off significant harbour bridge views.

Response – the proposal is compliant with the height standard applicable to the site. The distant views of the harbour obtained by adjoining developments could not reasonably be preserved given the distance from source of the views.

(z) The new proposed building on Mount Street will introduce balconies and bedrooms facing directly into the existing habitable rooms opposite the development which will impact on the existing amenity of those units.

Response – The balconies proposed to the upper floors of the Mount Street dwellings are to bedrooms and not living areas. The balconies are recessed behind the street wall and would not result in significant overlooking of adjoining developments. The balconies provide for passive surveillance of the street.

(aa) The building separation between the Mount Street block and the mid-block appears to be approx. 11m apart. According to the SEPP 65 document or the recent Apartment design guide, for 5 storey buildings, separation between habitable rooms / balconies should be 18m.

Response – The development does not meet the requirements of SEPP 65 and therefore the ADG is not enlivened for the assessment of this proposal.

(bb) Traffic congestion on Harris Street with no waiting bay provided for the vehicles entering and exiting the car park on Harris Street.

Response – Given the volume for traffic being generated by this proposal a priority giveaway sign to pedestrians is considered to be sufficient to address the traffic impacts of this development.

(cc) The application should by the Central Sydney Planning Committee due to the impacts of the development.

Response – The application does not meet the criteria to be considered by the CSPC.

(dd) The feasibility of the development.

Response – The feasibility of the development is matter for the applicant.

(ee) The Council should make an offer on the site. It’s acquisition would have served to expand services for local residents who have made very active use of existing facilities.

Response – Council is not considering the acquisition of the site for community purposes.



(ff) The Appendix 4 – Traffic and Parking assessment part 3, page 4 states there will be flashing lights to indicate vehicles entering and exiting. No noise associated with the warning system should be audible.

Response – Conditions have been recommended. Giveaway signs have been nominated.

(gg) The iconic sandstone topography of the peninsula has been lost. This site represents a final opportunity for the City of Sydney to preserve a significant portion of the sandstone peninsula in a largely intact form.

Response – In order the step the built form and provide onsite parking excavation of the site is required. The proposal is considered acceptable in this instance.

(hh) The Public Art Strategy presents a unique opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the historical themes of the site and its area – albeit in a modern and abstract way. The artwork presents an opportunity to address this by referencing Pyrmont yellow block as a key theme of the winning artistic design.

Response – The public art is limited to the entry foyer of the development and a condition has been recommended that the art installation be the subject of further consultation with Council Officers.

(ii) To improve community amenity; that Mount Street resident (those with no place for their current bins) have access to a “garbage room” off Mount Street.

Response – The provision of a garbage room for adjoining residents has not been proposed by the applicant and is not a planning requirement of the site.

(jj) Sub-letting and “Airbnb” type arrangements are specifically prohibited in any consent.

Response – A condition is recommended that the development not be used for the purpose of visitor and tourist accommodation.

(kk) The structural integrity of the many heritage buildings in and around the site. Council should ensure that any damage generated can be repaired to the highest structural standard.

Response – Conditions of consent are recommended for dilapidation reports for adjoining structures.

(ll) Garbage collection is not provided within the basement. This will most certainly introduce an increased waste bins on street for collection.

Response – The waste collection proposed is reasonable for this development given its scale.

PUBLIC INTEREST

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



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

S94 CONTRIBUTION

78. The development is subject of a S94 contribution under the provisions of the City of Sydney Development Contributions Plan 2015.

79. The following monetary contribution is required towards the cost of public amenities:

(a) Open Space $210,854.00

(b) Community Facilities $68,600.00

(c) Traffic and Transport $546.00

(d) Stormwater Drainage $0.00

Total $280,000.00

CITY WEST AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM

80. Clause 7.13 allows for the imposition of an affordable housing levy contribution on the land in conjunction with the Revised City West Affordable Housing Program published by the NSW Government in June 2010.

81. A rate for the residential contribution as of March 2016 is $29.40 per square metre. The affordable housing contribution is calculated on the Total Floor Area (TFA) of the development. Clause 7.13 (1) (b) states that a condition can be imposed requiring a contribution being 0.8% of so much (if any) of the total floor area of the development that is intended to be used for residential purposes. The development proposes a total floor area of 3,298.35sqm. 0.8% of the total floor area is 2,638.68sqm.

82. The affordable housing contribution is 2,638.68 x $29.40 = $77,577.19. A condition of consent has been recommended.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

83. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

CONCLUSION

84. The proposal is for the construction of 3 rows of attached terrace dwellings which complements the existing building typologies within the immediate locality. The proposal achieves design excellence through amendments proposed to the materials and finishes which better articulates the massing and bulk of the built form.

85. The development has reasonably resolved solar access, privacy within the development and to adjoining land and is subject to conditions to improve internal amenity.

86. The development complies with the Sydney LEP 2012 standards relating to maximum building height and floor space.



87. Subject to conditions of consent the proposal is recommended for approval as it presents sympathetic response to the adjoining heritage items and a transition is scale to the adjoining developments in Harris Street and Mount Street.

GRAHAM JAHN, AM Director City Planning, Development and Transport (Rene Hayes, Senior Planner)

Planning and Development Committee - 14 November 2016 ... · FILE NO: D/2016/916 DEVELOPMENT...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Development Committee - 14 November 2016 ... · FILE NO: D/2016/916 DEVELOPMENT...