Decision details

The Panel refused consent for Development Application D/2025/33.

Reasons for Decision

The application was refused for the following reasons:

(A)      The application has not provided sufficient information to satisfy Transport for NSW (a concurrence authority) that the development can be undertaken without adverse impacts to the adjacent interim rail corridor. The development is therefore contrary to Section 2.101 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021.

(B)      The application fails to satisfactorily address clause 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, as the application has not demonstrated the site is suitable (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the proposed use.

(C)      The application does not adequately address flood risk, and does not demonstrate the proposal incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood under clause 5.21 of the Sydney LEP 2012. 

(D)      The proposed development fails to exhibit “design excellence” pursuant to clause 6.21C of the Sydney LEP 2012 for the following reasons:

(i)         The application fails to demonstrate a high standard of architectural design and detailing appropriate to the building type and location, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(a);

(ii)        The application fails to demonstrate that the form and external appearance of the proposed development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(b);

(iii)      The application fails to appropriately address heritage and streetscape issues, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(d)(iii);

(iv)      The bulk and massing of the proposal is not considered appropriate within context of the site and surrounding buildings, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(d)(v);

(v)       The application fails to adequately address environmental impacts of overshadowing, acoustic privacy, and wind impacts, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(d)(vii); and

(vi)      The application is considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of the Haymarket/ Chinatown Special Character Area, pursuant to clause 6.21C(2)(d)(xi) and clause 5.1.1.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(E)      The proposal does not address all the general requirements under Section 3.2(1) of the SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 relating to energy efficiency for non-residential buildings.

(F)      The development, by way of its bulk, form, modulation and location will have an adverse impact on the visual setting and heritage significance of the Christ Church St Laurence, associated buildings, and streetscape. The development is therefore contrary to the planning controls under Clause 5.10 of the Sydney LEP 2012 and Section 3.9.5 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(G)      The proposal is not suitable within the context of the Haymarket and Chinatown Special Character Area, as demonstrated by the inconsistencies with the locality principles under Section 2.1.3 of the Sydney DCP 2012, and non-compliances with the planning controls under Section 5.1 of the Sydney DCP 2012 in regard to minimum setback above street frontage height, impacts to neighbouring heritage items, the exterior of the building, and managing wind impacts.

(H)      The proposal does not provide sufficient floor to floor heights, or appropriately designed internal common areas in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(I)        The proposal does not adequately address the controls for hotel and backpackers accommodation under Section 4.4.8 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(J)       The proposal fails to provide adequate bicycle storage in the building, and as such is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 3.11 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(K)      The proposal does not adequately address the noise impacts from the proposed bars on nearby residential development in accordance with Section 3.18 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(L)       The proposal does not address the recommendations and issues raised by the City’s Design Advisory Residential Subcommittee.

(M)     The development is unsatisfactory when assessed pursuant to the matters for consideration at section 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act and is therefore not in the public interest pursuant to section 4.15(1)(e) of the Act.

Carried unanimously.

D/2025/33