planning and development committee - 16 october 2017 ... and develop… · (b) the design...

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE 16 OCTOBER 2017

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 5-11 BOTANY ROAD, 80 AND 82 COPE STREET WATERLOO 12010610

ITEM 7. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 5-11 BOTANY ROAD, 80 AND 82 COPE STREET WATERLOO

FILE NO: D/2016/1722

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: D/2016/1722

SUMMARY

Date of Submission:

7 December 2016, amended plans received 19 May 2017

Applicant:

Suncom Property Development Pty Ltd

Architect:

JD & B Group Pty Ltd

Developer: Suncom Property Development Pty Ltd

Owner: Suncom Property Development Pty Ltd

Cost of Works: $17,284,062

Proposal Summary: The proposal seeks consent for a concept proposal including the following:

• In-principle approval for demolition of the existing commercial buildings;

• Indicative building envelopes to a height of 21.75m (approximately 5 stories);

• Indicative land uses of ground floor commercial/retail fronting Botany Road and residential floor space on Levels 1-4 and Ground-5 on the Cope Street building; and

• Vehicular access off Cope Street with indicative basement level.

The original notification of the application resulted in 20 submissions being received, objecting to the following matters:

• Character; • Height; • Solar access and overshadowing; • Acoustic privacy; • Car parking; • FSR; • Side setback requirements; • Contamination risks; and • Construction impacts.



Proposal Summary (continued):

The proposal has been amended during the assessment to reduce the basement excavation as well as provide additional details regarding flooding and overshadowing. Renotification was not required of the amended proposal. The applicant has submitted a written required under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2012 seeking to vary the building height development standard by 3.7 metres or 12%. This Clause 4.6 variation is not supported at this time, as it is considered that any additional building height above the 18 metre height control should form part of the detailed design development application, following the successful completion of a competitive design process. In this regard, an up lift of up to 10% height or floor space may be achieved through a competitive process. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, as detailed in Attachment A, it is considered that the proposed building envelopes and indicative land uses generally respond to the constraints of the site and applicable planning controls.

Summary Recommendation:

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

Development Controls:

(i) State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

(ii) State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

(iii) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

(v) State Environmental Planning Policy No.32 – Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

(vi) Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

(vii) Sydney Development Control Plan 2012

Developer Contributions

(viii) City of Sydney Development Contributions Plan 2015



Attachments:

A - Recommended Conditions of Consent

B - Concept Envelope Drawings

C - Selected Indicative Detailed Drawings

D - Design Excellence Strategy

RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that:

(A) a deferred commencement consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/1722, subject to the conditions as detailed in Attachment A to the subject report; and

(B) the Design Excellence Strategy for 5-11 Botany Road and 80-82 Cope Street, Waterloo, prepared by JBA dated March 2017, as shown at Attachment D to the subject report, be endorsed pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of the Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 and Section 1.2 of the Competitive Design Policy.



BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. The subject site is made up of 3 allotments and is legally identified as:

(a) Lot 1 of DP 632406 with a street address of 5-11 Botany Road, Waterloo;

(b) Lot 2 of DP 632406 known as 80 Cope Street, Waterloo; and

(c) Lots 1 and 2 of DP 996766 with an address of 82 Cope Street, Waterloo.

2. The site has a total combined area of 1812.3 sqm and is located on the eastern side of Botany Road, approximately 110 metres to the north of the junction of Botany Road and Henderson Road/Raglan Street. The site has a primary frontage to Botany Road of 22.18m and a secondary frontage to Cope Street of 30.23m to the east.

3. The site has a fall of approximately 1.5m from east to west (Botany Road to Cope Street). The Botany Road frontage contains a number of advanced street trees.

4. The site is almost entirely covered with buildings and currently contains a two storey commercial building to Botany Road with shop-top housing and two single storey light industrial warehouses fronting Cope Street. The site contains three vehicle crossovers on Cope Street. No vehicle access to the subject site exists on Botany Road.

5. Figure 1 - 3 below illustrates the site and its context.

Figure 1: Aerial image of the site



Figure 2: Site as viewed from Botany Road.

Figure 3: The site as viewed from Cope Street

6. The surrounding area has a varied character and built form with a mix of residential, commercial and remnant light industrial buildings. The site to the immediate north at No. 1-3 Botany Road contains a recently developed 4 storey residential flat building in a two building arrangement with a central communal courtyard (refer to Figure 7).



7. To the south at No.13-21 Botany Road is a single storey commercial supermarket (IGA) with a rear facing loading dock to Cope Street. Further to the south on Cope Street is No.86-90 Cope Street which is a recently developed five storey residential flat building with north facing apartments (refer to Figure 9).

8. To the west of the site across Botany Road is a recently completed 5 storey mixed use development at No.8 Botany Road (refer to Figure 5).

9. Directly to the east of the subject site is Phillip Street which is bordered to the north by the two storey Salvation Army Centre building and an 18 storey social housing complex.

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

Figure 4: The site looking south along Botany Road



Figure 5: Looking south along Botany Road.

Figure 6: The site as viewed from the footpath on Botany Road looking south

SITE



Figure 7: The northern property boundary of the site with No.1-3 Botany Road as viewed from

Botany Road



Figure 8: Looking north along Cope Street



Figure 9: Looking south along Cope Street

Figure 10: Looking south along Cope Street. Note the five storey development at No.86-90 Cope

Street.



Figure 11: The intersection of Phillip and Cope Street as viewed from the site looking west

PROPOSAL

11. The subject application is a concept development application. The concept proposal is for 2 building envelopes, which will facilitate a mixed used development above a shared basement.

12. The concept proposal:

(a) has a predominate building height of RL35.55 AHD (18 metres) with a maximum height of RL39.75 (21.7 metres) limited to a centralised location on each building for a future lift overrun;

(b) has been tested to demonstrate it is capable of accommodating an indicative FSR of up to 2.2:1 (which includes an additional FSR provision of up to 10% where the future detailed development application exhibits design excellence);

(c) an envelope built to the Botany Road alignment (on levels 1-4) with a 3 metre setback for the fifth (top) floor;

(d) nil setback from the Cope Street boundary of the site;

(e) a separation between the 2 envelopes of 18m to accommodate the provision of communal open space; and

(f) provision of vehicle access off Cope Street to one basement level.

13. Documentation submitted with the application includes an indicative scheme within the proposed envelope. This scheme includes:

(a) two ground level retail/commercial tenancies with frontage to Botany Road;



(b) 49 residential apartments; and

(c) basement parking for 28 cars.

14. Key concept development application envelope drawings and massing diagrams are provided in Figure 12 to 15, below. A full set of plans and elevations are provided in Attachment B.

Figure 12: Proposed site layout

Figure 13: The building envelope from Botany Road (left) and Cope Street (right)



Figure 14: 3D Massing of the proposal viewed from Botany Road looking east

Figure 15: 3D massing of the proposal viewed from Cope Street looking south

APPLICATION HISTORY

15. In correspondence dated 16 March 2017, amendments were requested for a detailed flood study, alterations to the vehicle access proposed for the site and details as to how the conflict between noise and natural ventilation will be resolved for the Botany Road building.

16. Amended plans and additional information was received 19 May 2017. The amended plans deleted 1 basement level and the waste vehicle turn-table, rearranged the indicative floor plans to improve the ventilation to a number of units fronting Botany Road as well as a number of minor modifications to the indicative floor plans.



17. The application was presented to the Design Advisory Panel on 8 June 2017.

ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

18. The application has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including consideration of the following matters:

(a) Staged Development Applications – Section 83A – 83D EP&A Act 1979

19. Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (‘SLEP 2012’) requires the preparation of a site specific development control plan for land with a site area of over 5,000sqm (other than land in Central Sydney or in Zone IN1) where the following is proposed:

(a) development for the purposes of a new building; and

(b) development that increases the gross floor area of an existing building.

20. Pursuant to Section 83C(2) of the EP&A Act, an applicant can submit a Staged Development application in lieu of preparing a site specific DCP. In conjunction with Section 83C(2) and the combined site area of 1812sqm, there is no requirement to prepare a site specific DCP in this instance. The applicant has ‘opted in’ to the staged process and is also proposing a competitive process with the submitted Design Excellence Strategy indicating that the proposal will be seeking additional floor space.

21. The application has been made as a concept development application to establish the concept for the redevelopment of the site. The application does not seek consent for any detailed aspect of the development. Pursuant to Section 83B of the EP&A Act, it is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed providing that the consent of a concept proposal does not authorise the carrying out of development on any part of the site.

22. Pursuant to Section 83D of the EP&A Act 1979, any subsequent detailed development application cannot be inconsistent with the concept proposal.

(a) Environmental Planning Instruments and DCPs.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

23. The aim of SEPP 55 is to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.

24. SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated prior to consenting to the carrying out of development. If the land is contaminated, the consent authority must be satisfied that the land is suitable for its intended use in its present state, or that it will be suitable after remediation, for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out. If the land requires remediation, the consent authority must also be satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

25. The site appears to have been used for commercial/industrial purposes including ‘motor assembly’ since around the 1930s. The proposal (mixed use/residential use) is for a more sensitive land use.



26. A Preliminary Site Investigation, Detailed Site Investigation has been performed and a Remediation Action Plan provided to Council. The investigation found concentrations of heavy metals (lead) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (organic contamination) on the site.

27. The Remediation Action Plan has considered all levels of contamination found and determined that given the bulk excavation of the site for the basement combined with other remediation measures, the site can be made suitable for the proposed residential uses.

28. Council’s Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that sufficient information can be submitted as part of a future detailed development application to conclude that the site can be made suitable for the proposed uses, and that the requirements of SEPP 55 can be satisfied. An appropriate condition of consent is recommended.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

29. State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 (SEPP 65) applies to the proposal as any future detailed development application will comprise of residential flat development of 3 or more floors and containing 4 or more apartments.

30. Clause 70B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 provides that design verification required under Clause 50(1A) is not required for Concept Development Applications unless the development application contains detailed proposals for a residential flat development or part of that development. Detailed proposals have not been submitted for approval. Nonetheless, a design verification statement was submitted to support the proposal confirming that a registered architect directed the design of the concept development application.

31. The concept development application requires assessment under the current SEPP 65 and the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

32. The proposed development is for conceptual building envelopes and indicative land uses only. No physical building works are sought, or recommended for approval, as part of this application. In the event that the subject application is approved, the detailed design of the development will be the subject of both a competitive design process and a further Development Application.

33. SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to take into consideration a number of matters relating to design quality. Consideration has been given to whether the proposed building envelopes and indicative land uses have the ability to achieve the 10 design quality principles set out in SEPP 65. A further, more detailed, assessment against the SEPP 65 principles (as amended) and the ADG will occur with the detailed Development Application.

(a) Principles 1, 2 and 3: Context, Scale and Built Form

The site is located within a part of Botany Road that permits mixed use developments. This stretch of Botany Road is diverse in terms of built form and scale, architectural building styles and land uses.



There are residential properties in the form of mixed use developments along Botany Road. There are commercial premises near the site varying from low rise supermarkets and pubs, to multi-storey mixed use and residential development. The more recent development have a consistent height of 4 stories with the ‘undeveloped’ sites retaining a 1-2 story height. The site is also located close to the 18 storey social housing development.

The proposal features 2 building envelopes, one facing Botany Road and the other Cope Street connected by a basement level. The height of the building is discussed in greater detail in the Issues section.

Given the diversity of built form and scale in the immediate area, the proposed scale and massing of the building envelopes are considered acceptable in its context.

The future detailed design development application of the proposal will need to consider the fine grain built form, architectural diversity and articulation, as well as maximising and activating existing and future street frontages to ensure an appropriate response to the site context.

(b) Principle 4: Density

The proposed building envelopes can accommodate a density of development envisaged by the applicable planning controls. The proposed building envelopes have been tested and it is considered that it will be able to accommodate a development with an FSR of 2:1, as well as a development which potentially achieves an FSR of up to 2.2:1 if, following a competitive design process, the consent authority is satisfied that the detailed development application scheme exhibits design excellence.

(c) Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

The proposed building envelopes benefits from having two street frontages and a central courtyard, which together will assist in creating opportunities for cross ventilation and solar access penetration into future residential apartments.

The energy and water efficiency, along with sustainability of the design will form part of the future detailed design. Conditions of consent are recommended to require that the detailed development application be consistent with SEPP 65 and BASIX requirements.

(d) Principle 6: Landscape

The indicative scheme indicates that landscaped areas will be provided as:

• a central courtyard between the two buildings;

• a landscaped strip on the eastern (Cope Street) side of the site; and

• landscaping on the roof as part of the communal open space on both buildings.



Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has assessed the proposal and is supportive of the indicative provision of deep soil planting on the northern property boundary within the ground floor communal open space. The landscaping of this area with large scale tree planting would benefit both the development itself and any adjoining buildings.

(e) Principle 7: Amenity

As the application is for a concept proposal only, a more rigorous assessment of amenity for future residents will occur as part of the future detailed design development application. However, as part of the subject application, indicative floor plans have been submitted to demonstrate that the building envelopes are capable of satisfying the objectives of SEPP 65 ADG (See Attachment C). It is considered that the proposed building envelopes are capable of accommodating a development that is consistent with the ADG.

Floor to Floor / Floor to Ceiling heights

The proposed building envelopes sits just above the 18m height limit and a 5 storey height control applies to the site. Given this, it is considered that there is sufficient height for floor to floor/floor to ceiling heights to achieve the required minimums for commercial and residential uses to meet the objectives of the ADG. A condition of consent is recommended requiring the detailed design to provide a floor to floor and floor to ceiling heights which comply with the minimum guidelines in the ADG and SDCP 2012, as relevant.

Apartments sizes and private open space

It is considered that the proposed building envelopes are of sufficient dimensions to accommodate apartment sizes and areas of private open space consistent with the ADG. It is recommended that a condition of consent be attached to ensure that the detailed design development application satisfies the ADG in terms of apartment sizes and private open space sizes and dimensions.

Solar Access & Cross Ventilation

The proposed building envelopes have the potential to accommodate a design capable of meeting the solar objectives and the natural cross ventilation requirements of the ADG.

Detailed solar access diagrams for each indicative unit have not been provided however it has been determined that the proposal has the ability to achieve the 70% solar access, consistent with the ADG.

The indicative floor plans provided propose the use of plenums and ducts to ventilate a number of units fronting Botany Road. It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed requiring the following be provided with the future detailed design development application:

• Full compliance with the ADG objectives for natural ventilation which is that 100% of all habitable room are to be naturally ventilated. The proposed indicative scheme proposes 18% (or 9 units) to be ventilated through the use of plenums or ducts;



• Full compliance with the AGD objectives for natural cross ventilation of 60% of all units to be naturally cross ventilated. The indicative scheme proposes a total of 25 out of 49 units to be naturally cross ventilated or 52%; and

• Full specifications and details of any ducts and plenums proposed.

The above requirements are to be achieved in conjunction with the requirements for acoustic privacy (discussed below).

Acoustic Privacy and Noise and Pollution

The site is located along Botany Road which is a major road and requires consideration to the noise and pollution on sensitive uses (residential). The indicative floor plans provided do not adequately mitigate the impacts of Botany Road on the proposed residential uses above. That being said, it is considered that the proposed building envelopes have the ability to comply. It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed requiring consistency with Section 4J of the ADG as well as additional details in the form of Acoustic and Pollution Reports. Refer to Issues section.

Access and Circulation

The indicative drawings show that ground level pedestrian access can be achieved through the site from Botany Road and Cope Street.

Separation and Privacy

The proposed building envelope’s setbacks from the property boundaries reflect the existing and future site context.

The separation between the two buildings is 18 metres, which is the minimum separation between habitable rooms/balconies under the ADG for buildings between 5 to 8 storeys in height.

Accordingly, adequate levels of privacy can be achieved between the site and adjoining sites, as well as between apartments within the site itself, subject to appropriate planning at the detailed design stage.

With regard to acoustic privacy, it is recommended that the future detailed development application be accompanied by appropriate acoustic reports which demonstrate that the development will be capable of achieving adequate levels of acoustic amenity for future occupants.

Storage

The provision of storage facilities for each residential apartment within the development can be addressed as part of the future detailed development application. An appropriate condition has been recommended.



(f) Principle 8: Safety and Security

The proposal is for a conceptual building envelope, with the detailed design of the building to be the subject of a competitive design process prior to the lodgement of a future detailed development application. It is considered that the building is able to be designed with consideration of the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and the safety provisions contained within the ADG.

The indicative floor plans provided with this development application show balconies and corridors which provide views out over Botany Road and Cope Street, as well as into the central courtyard area. These balconies and corridors will allow opportunities for casual surveillance of the streets and communal areas.

(g) Principle 9: Social Dimensions

As the proposal is for a concept design, the residential dwelling mix of the development has not been determined. Given the scale of the development, it is considered that it will be possible to provide a compliant dwelling mix within the building envelope. The indicative drawings demonstrate that a range of apartment types (eg. 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments) can be achieved within the building envelope. The indicative proposal has a compliant unit mix as required under SDCP 2012.

It is recommended that a condition of consent be attached requiring the detailed development application to provide dwelling mix compliant with the SDCP 2012 dwelling mix provisions.

(h) Principle 10: Aesthetics

The proposal is for conceptual building envelopes, with the detailed design and aesthetics of the building to be the subject of a competitive design process prior to the submission of a Stage 2 development application.

34. The envelopes are considered generally acceptable when assessed against the above stated principles and the SEPP generally (and amendments), which are replicated in large part within Council’s planning controls. A more comprehensive assessment to be undertaken as part of any future detailed development application.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

35. The provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (“ISEPP”) have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Clause 45

36. The application is subject to Clause 45 (Subdivision 2 Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network) of the SEPP as the development has the potential to impact the electricity transmission.

37. In accordance with the Clause, the application proposing a substation within the Cope Street frontage was referred to Ausgrid for a period of 21 days. Ausgrid have advised that a preliminary enquiry is recommended to indicate the proposed load of the new development once unit numbers and details are determined.



Clause 88 – Development within or adjacent to interim rail corridor

38. The application is subject to Clause 88 of the SEPP given its location above the proposed Sydney Metro rail corridor. The application was referred to Sydney Train/Sydney Metro for concurrence, which has been received. A number of conditions have been imposed which have been included at Schedule 3 in the draft Conditions of Consent (Attachment A).

Clause 101 – Development with a frontage to a classified road

39. The application is subject to Clause 101 of the SEPP as the site has frontage to Botany Road, which is a classified road. The application has the potential, subject to design solutions to satisfy Clause 101 of the Infrastructure SEPP subject to conditions of consent, as it does not provide access to the site from the classified road and acoustic conditions have been included within the recommended Conditions of Consent.

Clause 102 – Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development

40. The application is subject to Clause 102 of the SEPP as the average daily traffic volume of this section of Botany Road is more than 40,000 vehicles. The application is considered to be capable of satisfying Clause 102 of the Infrastructure SEPP subject to conditions of consent.

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

41. The future detailed development application will be required to satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (“BASIX”) requirements. A condition of consent is recommended to advise that any future residential scheme must comply with SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, and that a BASIX Certificate must be submitted with the future detailed development application.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 32—Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

42. State Environmental Planning Policy No 32—Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) (“SEPP 32”) provides for the increased availability of housing within the inner city and to assist in meeting the demand for housing close to employment, leisure and retail opportunities.

43. The proposed development of the site is consistent with the aims and objectives of SEPP 32.

Sydney LEP 2012

44. The site is located within the B4 – Mixed Use zone. The proposed use is defined as mixed use development and is permissible in this zone with consent.

45. 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 No A maximum height of 18m is permitted. The maximum height of the proposed building envelopes is RL39.75 or 21.7m. The proposed building envelopes sit above the 18m height limit. Please see Issues section of this report for further discussion.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio (“FSR”)

Able to comply

A maximum FSR of 2:1 is permitted.A FSR of 2:1 is proposed. The FSR figure above is exclusive of any additional FSR (up to 10%) that may be awarded to a scheme that has been subject to a competitive design process and is deemed to exhibit design excellence. The proposed building envelopes have been tested to arrive at an estimation of the achievable Gross Floor Area (“GFA”). It is considered that the proposed envelopes may be able to accommodate a development with an FSR of 2:1, as well as a development which achieves design excellence with an FSR of up to 2.2:1 (subject to the successful completion of a competitive design process). As the detailed design of the development has not yet been determined, it would be premature to approve a precise GFA or FSR as part of the subject application. However, it is recommended that a condition be attached requiring compliance with the applicable FSR controls.

4.6 Exemptions to development standards

No The proposal seeks to vary the development standard prescribed under Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings). Refer to the Issues section of this report for discussion.

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

Yes The proposal will have no adverse impacts on any surrounding trees.



Compliance Table


6.21 Design excellence Able to comply

In accordance with Clause 6.21(7) of SLEP 2012, up to an additional 10% FSR or height may be granted to a development that has been subject of a competitive design process, and the consent authority is satisfied that the development exhibits design excellence. The applicant has sought to demonstrate through the provision of indicative floor plans that up to an additional 10% FSR for design excellence is capable of being accommodated within the proposed building envelopes. As the proposal is for a concept design, it would be premature to award any additional FSR for design excellence at this stage. Prior to the submission of a future detailed development application, a competitive design process will need to be undertaken, and the detailed design of the proposal will need to exhibit design excellence in order for additional FSR to be awarded. A Design Excellence Strategy has been submitted specifying that the applicant will seek up to an additional 10% FSR pursuant to Clause 6.21(7) of LEP 2012. The Strategy submitted with the application is to the satisfaction of Council Officers.



Compliance Table


7.5 Car parking ancillary to other development

Able to comply

Car parking numbers for commercial and residential uses can only be assessed as part of a future detailed development application. Parking numbers are determined having regard to the proposed residential unit mix and commercial tenancy size/use. Further details of this will need to be provided for assessment as part of any future development application, to allow parking provision to be determined. It is recommended that a condition of consent makes clear that no approval is granted as part of this consent for the number of basement levels, particular parking numbers, basement design/ configuration etc.

7.13 Affordable housing n/a The subject site is not located within the Green Square, Southern Employment Lands or the Ultimo-Pyrmont precincts.

7.14 Acid Sulphate Soils Able to comply

The site is identified as containing class 5 Acid Sulphate Soil, and is not located within 500m of Class 1-4 land. The excavation proposed to accommodate the basement carpark is unlikely to impact on the water table. Given that the proposal is for concept approval, it is noted that acid sulfate soils will need to be addressed in more detail as part of the detailed development application, including the submission of an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan should the proposed basement excavation result in impacts to the water table.



Compliance Table


7.15 Flood planning Able to comply

The site is identified by Council as being flood affected. Council’s Development Engineers note that the submitted flood report provides preliminary flood levels which are based on the Alexandra Canal Flood Model. Based on the information submitted with the application the maximum flood planning level is RL18.15 and the driveway crest is RL18.15. It is noted that the proposed floor levels are in accordance with the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy. A full detailed assessment of the detailed design will be carried out at as part of the future development application.

7.16 Airspace operations Yes The proposed development will not penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface of RL70-80 AHD as shown on the Obstacle Limitation Surface Map for the Sydney Airport. The proposal is below the 45.72m height limit requiring Sydney Airport referral for comment.

7.19 Demolition must not result in long term adverse visual impact

Yes Any future detailed development application which proposes the demolition of the existing buildings on the site will assess the visual impacts of any demolition.

7.20 Development Requiring or Authorising Preparation of a Development Control Plan

Yes The submitted concept application has been lodged in lieu of the development of a site specific DCP. The application has been lodged in accordance with the requirements of Clause 7.20(4) with the exception of the requirement for a Public Art Strategy. It is recommended that the application be supported under Deferred Commencement to enable the preparation of the required strategy.

Sydney DCP 2012

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



2. Locality Statements – Regent Street/Botany Road

The subject site is located in the Regent Street/Botany Road locality. The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the unique character of the area and design principles in that it provides a mix of non-residential and residential uses and provides an appropriate setback to Botany Road.

3. General Provisions


3.1 Public Domain Elements 3.1.5 Public Art

Able to comply

A preliminary public art strategy has not been submitted as part of the subject application. There are a number of opportunities for public art within the subject site. A Strategy has been requested from the applicant and is currently being prepared. It is recommended that the application be supported under Deferred Commencement subject to the development of a Public Art Strategy in accordance with the SDCP 2012, the City of Sydney Guidelines for Public Art in Private Development and the Sydney Public Art Policy. The content of this Strategy should also be incorporated into any Design Excellence Brief.

3.2.2 Addressing the street and public domain

Able to comply

Vehicle access is proposed to be provided from Cope Street. The indicative drawings submitted for consideration show access to the carpark adjacent to the proposed substation as well as direct pedestrian access for a number of the units on this floor. While consent will not be granted through this concept application for the detailed ground floor design, the indicative floor plans indicate that compliance to this matter can be achieved.





3.3 Design Excellence and Competitive Design Processes

Able to comply

A competitive design process is triggered because such a process is needed where the applicant has ‘opted in’ to the process via the subject concept application. Prior to the submission of a detailed development application, a competitive design process will need to be undertaken. A Design Excellence Strategy has been prepared as part of this application is recommended to be endorsed should consent for the subject application be granted. The Strategy has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.8 of the SDCP 2012. A copy is provided at Attachment D. The applicant has provided indicative floor plans to show that up to an additional 10% FSR for design excellence can potentially be accommodated within the proposed building envelopes. Notwithstanding the applicant’s drawings, based on the site constraints and challenges to achieve ADG compliance, internal testing of the proposal has indicated that an addition 5% FSR is more likely to be able to be accommodated within the proposed envelopes. Refer to further discussion in Issues section. However, the award of this additional FSR is subject to the detailed design application of the proposal exhibiting design excellence.

3.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development

Able to comply

ESD targets have been outlined within the Design Excellence Strategy going beyond the requirements of BASIX. Details will be assessed as part of a future development application but must be incorporated within the Competitive Design Process. The principles of ecologically sustainable development will be implemented through the detailed design process.





3.7 Water and Flood Management

Able to comply

Development on sites over 1000sqm must demonstrate how it will achieve specific targets relating to reduction in pollutants and incorporation of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). A condition of consent will be imposed require details of the solutions to be provided with any future detailed design application.

Also refer to Clause 7.15 of the LEP compliance table.

3.8 Subdivision, Strata Subdivision and Consolidation

Able to comply

The site is currently 3 separate lots. The site’s redevelopment will involve the demolition of all existing buildings. Should the future detailed development application receive approval, the subsequent subdivision certificate will involve consolidation of the existing lots and re-subdivision.

3.11 Transport and Parking

Able to comply

Vehicular access The indicative drawings submitted for consideration show access to the carpark adjacent to an existing pedestrian crossing across Cope Street. No objection has been raised to the nominated access location from Council’s Transport Engineers. Servicing Please refer to the Issues section of this report.

Car and bicycle parking Consent will not be granted through the concept development application for on-site car and bicycle parking numbers or configuration. A condition of consent is recommended requiring car and bicycle parking to be provided as per the SLEP 2012 and SDCP 2012 rates and requirements.





3.12 Accessible Design Able to comply

It is recommended that a condition of consent be attached requiring the detailed design of the development to provide appropriate access and facilities for persons with disabilities in accordance with the SDCP 2012 and the BCA.

3.13 Social and Environmental Responsibilities

Able to comply

Details will need to be submitted with the detailed development application to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).

3.14 Waste

Able to comply

The detailed development application will need to demonstrate compliance with requirements for waste management facilities as per Council’s “Policy for Waste Minimisation in New Developments 2005”.

4. Development Types

4.2 Residential Flat, Commercial and Mixed Use Developments


4.2.1 Building height Able to comply

Height in storeys A 5 storey height control applies to the site. The indicative drawings submitted for consideration suggest that 5 storeys can be accommodated within the building envelopes. Floor to ceiling heights and floor to floor heights It is considered that there is sufficient room within the proposed building envelopes to accommodate a 5 storey building which can achieve the floor to ceiling heights and floor to floor heights specified in the SDCP 2012 and the ADG, as relevant. Details will need to be provided with the detailed development application to demonstrate compliance with these controls.






4.2.2 Building setbacks Able to comply

No setback is identified within the building setback and alignment map in the SDCP 2012, however, the SDCP 2012 does specify a 4 storey street frontage height with a 3m fifth storey setback on the Botany Road frontage. This has been reflected in the proposed building envelopes. Section 2.13.13 – Regent Street/Botany Road locality requires a 3m setback to Cope Street. The proposed envelope diagrams do not include this setback and the indicative drawings propose a number of minor encroachments into this setback. This is not considered acceptable given the setbacks to adjoining recent developments (most notably to the north). A condition of consent is recommended to require the building envelope be set back 3m from Cope Street.

4.2.3 Amenity Able to comply

Solar access and ventilation Refer to discussion under SEPP 65/ ADG. Landscaping The indicative scheme proposes landscaped areas on the northern and south-western boundaries as well as a common open space area that is central within the site. Detailed landscape plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the future detailed development application.






Deep Soil A minimum amount of 10% of the site is to be deep soil area, with a minimum dimension of 10m. The indicative scheme proposes areas of deep soil adjacent to both side boundaries to total 10% of the site area. An area with a minimum dimension of 10m is provided adjacent to the northern boundary. A condition is recommended to ensure that the minimum amount of deep soil area is provided in accordance with the definition of the SDCP. Private open space and balconies It is considered that the proposed building envelopes will be able to accommodate a building design that is capable of meeting the private open space and balcony provisions of the SDCP and the ADG, as relevant. Common Open Space An area of common open space that is 25% of the total site area and has a minimum dimension of 6m is to be provided. At least 30% of the common open space area is to receive 2 hours of direct sunlight at midwinter. The indicative scheme also proposes common open space areas on the rooves of the buildings which will be subject to a further assessment in the future detailed development application. Outlook Please refer to the ADG compliance table above. Acoustic privacy The acoustic performance of detailed development is a matter for consideration as part of the assessment of the detailed development application. Refer to Issues section for further discussion.






Flexible housing and dwelling mix A condition of consent is recommended requiring the detailed development application to provide a dwelling mix compliant with the SDCP 2012 dwelling mix provisions.

4.2.4 Fine grain, architectural diversity and articulation

Able to comply

The fine grain built form, architectural diversity and articulation of development within the building envelope are matters for consideration as part of the design competition process and the future detailed development application.

4.2.5 Types of development

Able to comply

Courtyard buildings The building envelopes are designed in a dual frontage form with a central courtyard. Section 4.2.5.2 of the SDCP 2012 asks for private communal courtyards to have a visual connection with the public domain through entrances and breaks in the building. The provisions of Section 4.2.5.2 of the SDCP 2012 can be taken into account at the detailed design stage of the development. Development on busy roads and active frontages The proposal fronts onto Botany Road which is defined as a busy road. The detailed design of the proposal will need to have consideration of relevant SDCP 2012 provisions relating to residential uses at first floor levels. Refer to further discussion in the Issues section. Residential uses on the ground and first floor The proposed building envelopes indicate residential uses will be accommodated at ground level and first floor levels of the development. The detailed design of the proposal will need to have consideration of relevant SDCP 2012 provisions relating to residential uses at first floor levels.






4.2.6 Waste minimisation Able to comply

It is recommended that a condition of consent be attached requiring the detailed development application to demonstrate compliance with requirements for waste management facilities as per Council’s “Policy for Waste Minimisation in New Developments 2005” and to ensure that adequate provision is made within the site for the storage and collection of both commercial and residential waste.

ISSUES

Maintaining Acceptable Noise levels and Natural Ventilation

47. The location of a residential use adjacent a busy road corridor like Botany Road creates a conflicting interface between managing acceptable noise levels in apartments whilst maintaining amenity like natural ventilation, natural cross ventilation, solar access and private open space.

48. In consideration of maintaining amenable noise levels in habitable rooms there are 3 relevant regulations which are to be considered. These are discussed below:

(a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

(i) Clause 101 does not permit development of a sensitive use fronting a classified road unless it is satisfied that measures to ameliorate traffic noise impacts have been incorporated into the design.

(ii) Clause 102 regards the development of a residential use on classified roads with vehicle movements of 40,000 or greater. It requires that the NSW Governments Interim Guidelines for Development near rail corridors and busy roads must be regarded in the assessment of residential buildings.

It also requires that all bedrooms are able to achieve a background noise level of 35dB(a) between 10pm and 7am, and all others areas of the building achieve a 40dB(A) background noise level at any time.

(b) Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline

(i) These guidelines expand on the process behind coming to the noise levels under Clause 102 as described above as well as how the levels are to be adequately measured and mitigated through design.



(c) Sydney DCP 2012

(i) Section 4.2.3.11 requires that development include acoustic measures to reduce impacts from busy roads on residential flat buildings. It stipulates background noise levels for both open and closed window scenarios:

a. closed windows and doors:

i. 35dB for bedrooms (10pm-7am); and

ii. 45dB for main living areas (24 hours); and

b. open windows and doors;

i. 45dB for bedrooms (10pm-7am); and

ii. 55dB for main living areas.

49. Concurrently to these acoustic measures, the ADG requires that all habitable rooms within an apartment be able to access natural ventilation through an opening equivalent to 5% of the room’s floor area (Section 4B).

50. This creates a scenario where a habitable room in an apartment must achieve required background noise levels whilst accessing natural ventilation.

51. Assessment has concluded that the site is not able to achieve the internal acoustic levels required whilst being naturally ventilated by the conventional means of having windows and/or doors open based on the existing noise levels of 74dB(A). An alternative solution was therefore designed for the site to achieve compliance.

52. The indicative scheme has been revised during the assessment to find an appropriate amelioration for the noise issue. The amended design strategy was submitted which utilised layout changes and acoustically treated plenums around the perimeter of apartments fronting Botany Road to ventilate rooms in accordance with the ADG, whilst mitigating noise from habitable rooms, to background levels required under SEPP (Infrastructure) and the Sydney DCP 2012.

53. Whilst this revised indicative scheme (included at Attachment C) has gone some way to addressing the conflict between noise and ventilation, further testing by the City’s Urban Design Specialist suggests that an alternative floor plan design can resolve this issue without the use of plenums and retaining a similar yield. It is considered that this issue can be further developed as part of the design excellence competitive process and the assessment of a future detailed development application. A condition is included to make it clear that the indicative scheme should not be relied upon as a satisfactory solution for competitors in the design excellence process.

Clause 4.6 – Height of Buildings

54. The SLEP height control is 18m and the SDCP height control is 5 storeys.

55. The proposal has a maximum height of approximately:

(a) 17.6m to the top of the Botany Road building parapet;



(b) 19.39m to the top of the Botany Road roof access stairs;

(c) 20.6m to the top of the Botany Road lift overrun;

(d) 18.4m to the top of the Cope Street building;

(e) 20.75m to the top of the Cope Street roof access stairs; and

(f) 21.75m to the top of the Cope Street lift overrun.

56. The proposed height of the building is shown in Figures 16 below.



Figure 16: Proposal demonstrating breach of 18m height control



57. The applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2012 to seek an exemption to the height development standard by 3.7m. This represents a 12% exceedance of the height control. Whilst this is a concept proposal, the envelope includes protrusions for a lift overrun and stair access to future usable roof tops in both buildings.

58. Clause 4.6 allows Council to vary development standards in certain circumstances and provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to achieve better design outcomes. The Council may grant the exception as the Director-General’s concurrence can be assumed where Clause 4.6 is adopted as per Department of Planning Circular PS 08-003 dated 9 May 2008.

59. A written request, pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), has been submitted to Council justifying the proposed contravention of the height development standard on the following basis:

(a) The applicant states that proposal responds to the objectives of Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of SLEP 2012 as follows:

(i) Objective (a): the height of the development is appropriate to the condition of the site and its context within the streetscape. The height of the building is appropriate given the zoning and desired future character of the area, particularly given the consistency of the proposed envelopes with the number of storeys specified for the site under the SDCP 2012.

(ii) Objective (b): the proposed building envelopes are for 5 storeys which is in consistent with the SDCP 2012 and provides and appropriate transition between the nearby heritage conservation area.

(iii) Objective (c): the proposed additional height does not result in any impacts to existing views as the height of adjoining buildings already restrict sight lines from adjoining properties.

(iv) Objective (d) and (e): the proposal respects the height transition set for Green Square and the adjoining areas under SLEP 2012. The minor variation to accommodate lift overruns and small portions of the roof will not be perceivable within viewed from the public domain and adjoining developments.

(b) The applicant states that strict compliance with the development standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

(i) The numerical height limit exceedance will have no impact on the streetscape, transition of the built form, or the perceived scale of the building when viewed from the public domain.

(ii) The additional height comprises non-habitable space, however may provide access to a roof terrace as detailed on the indicative drawings. The roof terrace may result in privacy impacts however it is felt that these impacts can be mitigated by way of screening if required under a future detailed application if required.

(iii) The additional height sought will largely facilitate lift overruns and stairs that provide access to rooftop communal areas of private open space (to be detailed under the detailed development application).



(iv) The additional height will not result in additional overshadowing, beyond what would be expected from a compliant building. Any shadow cast from the subject structures will fall on the roof of the development.

60. Whilst there may be merit in communally accessible roof terraces and associated structures that sit above the height control, it is considered to be premature that this be determined as part of any concept development application. Where a built form above 18m is sought, the most appropriate time for Council to award any additional height/vary the development standard is following completion of the design competition and as part of a future detailed development application.

61. As such, it is not appropriate that the written statement submitted by the applicant under Clause 4.6 to vary the building height development standard be supported at this time.

Building Separation

62. The site is located next to an existing single storey supermarket to the south, and therefore the future development potential of this site is a consideration when considering building separation and side setbacks.

63. The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) recommends a minimum separation distance for buildings of:

(a) 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies for buildings up to four storeys, and reduced to 9 metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms or 6 metres between non-habitable rooms; and

(b) 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies for buildings of five to eight storeys, and reduced to 12 metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms or 9 metres between non-habitable rooms.

64. The indicative design proposes a 5 storey building with side setbacks of 4.5 metres to the southern side and 4.9 metres to the northern boundary. This is consistent with the setbacks of No.1-3 Botany Road to the north. Refer to Figure 17.

Figure 17: Typical indicative floor plan (level 3) showing the 4.5m setback envisaged for the buildings.



65. The building envelope plans do not include a side setback, however this will permit competitors to consider whether there are more innovative design measures that address amenity issues such as acoustic impacts. Where any future detailed proposal includes building with a nil side setback no windows will be permitted along these walls in accordance with the ADG for privacy and fire safety.

66. The proposed nil side setbacks proposed within the concept building envelopes are considered to be appropriate in this instance.

Overshadowing

67. Part 4.2.3.1 of the SDCP 2012 requires that proposed apartments in a development and neighbouring developments must achieve a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June onto at least 1sqm of living room windows and a minimum 50% of the required minimum area of private open space area.

68. Overshadowing was raised as a preliminary assessment issue with detailed solar access diagrams being provided by the applicant in 30 minute intervals (refer to Attachment C). The diagrams indicate that the shadows will fall predominantly on the southern adjoining properties at No.13-21 Botany Road (IGA supermarket) and the residential development at No.86 Cope Street.

69. The overshadowing will impact the north facing private open space and living areas of the bottom 3 levels of No.86 Cope Street during the hours of 9:00am and 2:00pm resulting in a non-compliance with the solar access requirements of the ADG and SDCP 2012. Refer to Figure 18 below.

Figure 18: Sun’s eye view at 3pm showing the affected units of No.86 Cope Street.

70. In order to mitigate this shadow impact, a 4.5m setback is required from the southern property boundary for the top level of the Cope Street building (Building B). The applicant submitted solar access diagrams detailing the impacts of the proposed 4.5m setback which indicated an improvement to the overshadowing to the second floor of No.86 Cope Street. An appropriate condition to this effect has been recommended.



71. Subject to the condition as proposed above, the proposed building envelopes are capable of compliance with the requirements of SDCP 2012.

Waste Collection/Servicing

72. Based on the indicative drawings submitted for consideration, Council’s Access and Transport Team have raised concerns about the lack of on-site servicing for the site.

73. The amended application proposed on-street waste collection due to space constraints, vehicle turning movements, proximity to the pedestrian crossing/Phillip Street intersection as well as excavation restrictions due to the proposed Sydney Metro line. Full details and arrangements for waste collection are to be detailed as part of the design excellence brief and will be assessed as part of the future detailed design application.

74. In addition, no provision within the indicative floor plans has been made for servicing of the commercial tenancies. A condition of consent is recommended requiring provision to be made.

Other Impacts of the Development

75. 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

76. 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

77. The application was referred to multiple Council units including; Urban Design, Health and Building, Public Domain, Waste Services, Transport and Landscaping.

Design Advisory Panel

78. The proposal was presented by Planning staff to the Design Advisory Panel (DAP) on 8 June 2017.

79. The advice contained in the minutes from this DAP meeting are summarised as follows:

(a) The Panel suggested consideration be given to a ‘loose-fit’ approach to the concept envelope, to allow maximum flexibility in the Design Competition and at detailed design stage to enable alternative approaches to building forms and design to achieve better amenity outcomes. Natural ventilation, sunlight and acoustic controls are issues to be raised in the design competition brief.

(b) The envelope could be generated by setting the height limit across the full site area, and applying the street setbacks. The Design Excellence bonus should be set at a maximum of 10% and tied to achievement of meeting ADG as a minimum on issues of natural ventilation, solar access and acoustic amenity.



(c) A change of use to commercial on the Botany Road frontage, and maintaining residential on Cope Street is recommended to address the amenity issues raised by the Panel while also achieving the permissible FSR.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Ausgrid

80. The application was referred to Ausgrid as the proposal may have an impact on the existing supply in the area. A condition has been recommended that outlines the Ausgrid requirements.

Roads and Maritime Services

81. The application was referred to the Roads and Maritime Services. No comments were received in response. Concurrence was not required in this instance as no changes to the vehicle arrangements along Botany Road are proposed.

Notification, Advertising and Delegation

82. In accordance with Schedule 1 the SDCP 2012, the proposed development is required to be notified and advertised. As such, the application was notified and advertised for a period of 28 days between 9 January 2017 and 7 February 2017. As a result of this notification, there were 20 submissions received.

(a) The proposed 5 storey height control is out of character from the surrounding area

Response – The SDCP 2012 permits a maximum of 5 storeys on the subject site and immediate vicinity.

(b) The height will restrict the open aspect of the adjoining property

Response – The proposed building envelopes and recommended conditions of consent will ensure two building forms which will enable sight lines through the property to the north.

(c) The proposal will result in a loss of solar access to No.86 Cope Street

Response – The solar access impacts of the proposed building envelopes have been fully tested with a minor non-compliance to the residential development at No.86 Cope Street. As a result, a condition of consent will increase the southern setback of the fifth (top) floor of the Cope Street. This should improve the non-compliance. It is also noted that any future detailed application must also comply with the solar access requirements of the ADG and LEP 2012.

(d) The proposal will result in a loss of visual and acoustic privacy due to the location of the balconies and windows

(e) The condensers for the IGA supermarket will require noise attenuation treatments for the future residents

Response – The detailed development application will be required to consider privacy and acoustic impacts as part of the detailed design.



(f) The additional number of residents and limited parking provided on site will negatively impact the available on street parking within the vicinity

(g) The car parking permitted on the site is contrary to ESD principles and should not be permitted

Response – The car parking is considered under the detailed development application and must comply with the requirements of the SLEP 2012.

(h) The location of the substation has not been integrated into the proposal and will detract from the Cope Street frontage

Response – The location of the substation was moved under the amended indicative plans. However, the final location and its integration within the building will be considered under the future detailed development application.

(i) The proposed building envelopes do not comply with the side setback requirements of the ADG

Response – The envelope is considered acceptable under the ADG.

(j) The proposed FSR breached the maximum permitted 2:1 FSR for the site

Response – The subject development application is recommending approval for a maximum FSR of 2:1 with the potential for a future uplift of up to 10% additional FSR should the future detailed development exhibit design excellence. The subsequent detailed development application will be required to determine if the additional floor space can be accommodated on the site with no adverse impacts to adjoining properties.

(k) The location of the vehicle entrance will pose a traffic safety hazard given its proximity to the existing pedestrian crossing

Response – Council’s Transport Engineers have raised no concerns regarding the location of the crossover as it is an existing crossover and the use of this crossover will be future occupants of the site who will be familiar with the surroundings.

(l) The future development will pose contamination risks to surrounding properties/occupants

Response – A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) has been submitted and supported by Council’s Environmental Health Unit.

(m) Disruption and damage during construction including basement excavation

(n) Security risks to adjoining properties during and post construction

Response – Construction of a development does result in disturbance to adjoining properties however the disturbance is temporary in nature. In addition, concerns relating to hours of construction, preparation of a construction traffic management plan, acoustic reports, etc, can and will be mitigated by way of conditions of consent on the detailed development application.



(o) The proposed 2 buildings will create a wind tunnel effect combined with the similar built form of No.1-3 Botany Road

Response – The height of the proposed building did not necessitate the provision of a Wind Report at concept stage. The future detailed development application will require adequate building separation to limit these impacts as well as any mitigation measures required such as vegetation, built form features, etc. Assessment of these treatments may require a Wind Report to be submitted during the assessment of the detailed design.

(p) The site should be acquired and used for a public park

Response – There is no plan for the Council to purchase the site for use as a public park.

PUBLIC INTEREST

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 94 contributions

84. The detailed development application will be subject to developer contributions under the City of Sydney Development Contributions Plan 2006.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

85. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

CONCLUSION

86. The proposed concept application for the redevelopment of the site is considered to be acceptable and consistent with the B4 – Mixed Use Zone objectives of Sydney LEP 2012.

87. It is considered that the proposed building envelopes are capable of delivering a development that can comply with relevant built form and amenity controls in SEPP 65 (including amendments), the ADG, Sydney LEP 2012 and Sydney DCP 2012. The proposed building envelopes also provides sufficient flexibility for a range of design options to be explored in order to achieve a development scheme which exhibits design excellence.

88. The proposed variation in height of buildings pursuant to Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2012 is considered to be premature and is at this time not supported.

89. A Deferred Commencement condition is recommended to facilitate the development of a Public Art Strategy to eventually form part of the endorsed Design Excellence Strategy.



90. A competitive design process will need to be undertaken prior to the submission of a Stage 2 development application. Conditions of consent are recommended to ensure that the detailed development is contained within the Stage 1 building footprint and envelope, and complies with all relevant planning controls.

GRAHAM JAHN, AM Director City Planning, Development and Transport (Jemima Royall, Planner)

planning and development committee - 16 october 2017 ... and develop… · (b) the design...

Documents