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.
(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).