Development Application: 23 Hughes Street, Potts Point - D/2020/950

03/02/2021 - Development Application: 23 Hughes Street, Potts Point - D/2020/950

The Panel refused consent for Development Application No. D/2020/950 for the following reasons:

(A)        No BASIX Certificate

The proposal is considered to be BASIX affected development in accordance with the definition outlined under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

The provisions of SEPP (BASIX) 2004 Clause(6)(1)(a) requires a BASIX Certificate to accompany a development application for proposed BASIX affected development.

Council Officers informed the applicant that a BASIX Certificate should be submitted on lodgement during Pre-DA discussions (PDA/2020/44) in May 2020.

The applicant has not submitted a BASIX Certificate and contends that one is not required. Council does not support the applicant's assertion that a BASIX Certificate is not required.

(B)        Inconsistent with zone objectives

The proposed development will provide an unacceptable level of residential amenity for future occupants and is therefore inconsistent with dot one objective of the R1 - General Residential zone in that it does not provide for the housing needs of the community.

The proposed development is non-compliant with multiple residential amenity controls of the Sydney DCP and results in poor quality residential accommodation with an inadequate level of residential amenity which therefore fails to meet a housing need.

(C)       Fails to achieve Design Excellence

The proposed development fails to achieve the principles of Design Excellence in accordance with Clause 6.21 of the Sydney LEP and fails to adequately address the following provisions:

·             (4)(d)(ii) any heritage issues and streetscape constraints;

·             (4)(d)(v) the bulk, massing and modulation of buildings;

·             (4)(d)(vii) environmental impacts, such as sustainable design, overshadowing and solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, noise, wind and reflectivity;

·             (4)(d)(viii) the achievement of the principles of ecologically sustainable development;

·             (4)(d)(xii) achieving appropriate interfaces at ground level between the building and the public domain; and

·             (4)(d)(xiii) excellence and integration of landscape design.

(D)       Heritage impact

The proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 5.10 of the Sydney LEP, as it will result in the substantial demolition of a contributory building which will have an adverse impact upon the significance of the heritage conservation area.

The application is inconsistent with Section 3.9.7 of the Sydney DCP and does not justify the substantial demolition of a contributory building.

The proposed additions are non-compliant with the provisions of Section 3.9.7(3)(a) of the Sydney DCP as they are unsympathetic and do not respect the original or characteristic built form.

(E)        Unacceptable level of residential amenity

The design of the development restricts natural ventilation and is non-compliant with Section 4.2.3.9 of the Sydney DCP. A number of the bedrooms are deep, single aspect rooms with fixed windows and will therefore have no access to natural ventilation.

12 of the 20 bedrooms have been measured to be undersized as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 4.4.1.2 of the Sydney DCP.

The proposed development offers an inadequate provision of communal indoor living space and a poorly designed communal open space as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 4.4.1.4 of the Sydney DCP.

The proposed stairs and lift lobbies have no access to daylight and the lift lobbies are non-compliant with the 2m width requirement as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 4.2.3.3 of the Sydney DCP.

(F)        The proposed development offers an inadequate provision of communal laundry and drying facilities to serve the proposed number of residents of the boarding house space as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 4.4.1.5 of the

(G)       Sydney DCP Clause 4.6 - Motorcycle Parking

The proposed development is non-compliant with Clause 30(1)(h) of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 which requires the provision of one motorcycle space every five boarding rooms. The proposed development provides no motorcycle parking representing a 100% departure from the development standard.

The Clause 4.6 request to vary the standard is not supported as the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R1 - General Residential Zone and therefore the request cannot be supported as it does not comply with the provisions of Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii).

(H)       Waste

The proposal to situate a bin storage area within the landscaped front setback will have an adverse impact upon the streetscape as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 3.14 of the Sydney DCP.

(I)          Tree management

The proposed removal of Tree 1 and Tree 5 is not supported as they are identified as trees of moderate to high landscape which make a positive contribution to the streetscape, as such the proposed development does not comply with Section 3.5.3 of the Sydney DCP.

(J)         Inadequate information for assessment

The applicant has provided inadequate information to facilitate thorough assessment of the development proposal and its impacts, as follows:

·             A BASIX Certificate has not been provided, nor has any other details of sustainability commitments, to determine the development's compliance with Section 3.6 of the Sydney DCP.

·             The applicant has not undertaken an assessment of the development's impact upon constraining solar access to the lightwell benefitting 25 Hughes Street to determine whether the proposal will conflict with the provisions of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Sydney DCP.

·             The applicant has not submitted any information or analysis of view loss to determine the extent of any impact in accordance with Section 4.2.3.10 of the Sydney DCP.

(K)        Public interest

The proposed development will adversely impact upon the heritage significance of the site and proposes unsympathetic additions, whilst providing an unacceptable level of amenity to future occupants and constraining the existing level of amenity to neighbouring properties, and is therefore not in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

D/2020/950

Speakers

Mr David Orr (resident), Mr Wayne Gross (resident), and Ms Margie Blok (resident).