The Panel refused consent for Development Application Number D/2023/862 for the reasons outlined below.
Reasons for Decision
(B) The application is inconsistent with the Clause 1.2(2)(e) aim of the Sydney LEP 2012 as it fails to encourage the growth and diversity of the residential population of the City of Sydney by providing for a range of appropriately located housing, including affordable housing.
(C) The application fails to satisfy the objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone of the Sydney LEP as it does not provide for the housing needs of the community and does not contribute to a variety of housing types and densities.
(D) The proposed development is in breach of the Height of Buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the Sydney LEP 2012 and exceeds the height in storeys control of Section 4.2.1.1 of the Sydney DCP 2012. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the Height of Buildings standard has not demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the development standard.
(E) The proposed development is in breach of the Floor Space Ratio development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Sydney LEP. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request to contravene the Floor space ratio development standard has not demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the development standard.
(G)
The proposed
development does not respond to or complement adjoining heritage and
contributory buildings, does not respond to the topography of the site and is
not in keeping with the unique character of the locality. The proposal is
therefore contrary to the locality provisions of Section 2.4.3 and 2.4.7 of the
Sydney DCP and the heritage provisions of Clause 5.10 of the Sydney LEP 2012
and Sections 3.9.1, 3.9.5, 3.9.6, 3.9.9 and 3.9.10 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(H)
The proposal
does not meet the requirements of the City’s Landscape Code and does not
provide 10% deep soil in a consolidated area and is therefore non-compliant
with Sections 4.2.3.5 and 4.2.3.6 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(I) The development proposes vehicle access from the primary road frontage, does not include bicycle parking, and is contrary to the transport and parking requirements Sections 3.11.3, 3.11.6, and 3.11.11 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(J)
The proposed
side setbacks and building setting is inconsistent with the desired
future pattern of residential development and setbacks in the block, pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(K) The development does not provide appropriate amenity for residents. The development does not provide unit, private open space or communal open space in accordance with the minimum dimensions and size requirements of the ADG, and Sections 4.2.3.7, Section 4.2.3.8 and Section 4.2.3.9 of the Sydney DCP 2012. Poor outlook is also provided to bedrooms due to screening and to the lower ground unit to Victoria Street which is contrary to Section 4.2.3.10 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(L)
Inadequate
information has been submitted to properly assess the application and the
proposed development therefore fails to satisfy the following requirements:
(i)
The
application fails to satisfactorily address site contamination in accordance
with Section 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and
Hazards) 2021, the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP
55–Remediation of Land, Clause 7.14 Acid Sulfate Soils of the Sydney LEP 2012
and Section 3.17 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(ii)
The
application provides insufficient information to determine the impacts of the
proposed excavation upon the structural integrity of neighbouring buildings and
the retained rock face on the adjacent site at 30A - 34 Broughan Street,
pursuant to Section 3.9.13 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(iii)
Insufficient
information has been supplied to determine whether the building breaches the
25m design competition process threshold. No competitive design process has
been undertaken for the development and it is therefore contrary to Clause
6.21D(1) of the Sydney LEP 2012 and Section 3.3 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(iv)
The
application fails to demonstrate 15 per cent tree canopy coverage within 10
years of completion, pursuant to Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 of the Sydney DCP.
Insufficient information has been supplied to determine construction impacts on
existing trees adjoining the site which is contrary to the requirements of
Section 3.5.3 of the Sydney DCP 2012 and Chapter 2 Vegetation in non-rural
areas of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP 2021.
(v)
The
preliminary public art plan does not satisfy requirements for public art in
accordance with the City's Interim Guidelines for Public Art in Private
Developments and the development is therefore contrary to the requirements of
Section 3.1.5 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(vi)
The application fails to demonstrate
compliance with the City’s Interim Flood Planning Policy and stormwater
drainage and quality requirements and is therefore contrary to Clause 5.21 of
the Sydney LEP 2012, and Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of the Sydney DCP
2012.
(vii)
The application fails to provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that each of the proposed dwellings and neighbouring
dwellings will receive the minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight to living room
windows and private open space areas between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, pursuant
to Section 4.2.3.1 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(viii) The location and design of the waste storage room and waste chutes are contrary to the waste requirements set out in the City of Sydney Guidelines for Waste Management in New Development, Section 3.11.13, Section 3.14, Section 4.2.6 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(M)
The proposed
development fails to exhibit Design Excellence pursuant to Clause 6.21C of the
Sydney LEP 2012 due to the following:
(i)
The
application fails to demonstrate a high standard of architectural design and
detailing appropriate to the building type and surrounding heritage character,
pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(a).
(ii)
The form and
external appearance of the proposed development will not improve the quality of
the public domain, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(b) and Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(x).
(iii)
The proposed
development detrimentally impacts on public view corridors from Victoria
Street, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(c).
(iv)
The
application fails to appropriately address heritage issues and streetscape
constraints, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(iii).
(v)
The proposed
development fails to provide an appropriate bulk, massing and modulation of
buildings, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(v).
(vi)
The proposal
is not consistent with existing street frontage heights, pursuant to Clause
6.21C(2)(d)(vi).
(vii)
The
application fails to adequately address environmental impacts of overshadowing,
solar access, views and visual privacy, pursuant to the provisions outlined
under Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(vii).
(viii)
The application
fails to adequately consider pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and service access
and circulation requirements, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(ix).
(ix)
The proposed
development does not achieve an appropriate interface at ground level between
the building and the public domain, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(xii).
(x) The proposed development fails to demonstrate excellence and integration of landscape design pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(xii).
(N)
The development
is unsatisfactory when assessed pursuant to the matters for consideration at
section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act and is therefore not in the public
interest.
(O) As the application was made but not determined on or before 14 December 2023, the bonus floor space and height under Chapter 2 Division 1 of the Housing SEPP does not apply to the development, pursuant to Schedule 7A Savings and Transitional Provisions, Section 8 State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment Housing 2023.
Carried unanimously.
D/2023/862