planning and development committee - city of sydney · the proposal is not seen to exhibit design...

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT SUB-COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2017

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 17 ROSS STREET FOREST LODGE 11140703

ITEM 9. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 17 ROSS STREET FOREST LODGE

FILE NO: D/2016/751

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: D/2016/751

SUMMARY

Date of Submission:

8 June 2016

Applicant:

Ms Sook Argent

Architect:

Mccullum Ashby Architects

Developer: Ms Chung Sook Argent

Owner: Ms Chung Sook Argent

Cost of Works: $695,000

Proposal Summary: Proposed demolition of the existing single storey building and construction of a new 4 storey mixed use building with a retail/commercial tenancy on the ground level and a boarding house for the 3 levels above. The boarding house is to have 5 rooms to cater for 6 occupants. The proposal is referred to the Planning and Development Committee, as Council staff do not have delegation to determine applications greater than 3 storeys. The applicant seeks via Clause 4.6 that the development standard for FSR be varied. A maximum FSR of 2:1 is permitted. The proposed FSR is 2.17:1 which exceeds the control by 17.74sqm (8.6%). The Clause 4.6 variation is not supported as the applicant has not demonstrated that there are sufficient planning grounds justifying that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary. The proposal contains non-compliances in regards to requirements for boarding house developments in SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the Sydney DCP 2012. Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the height in storeys control and requirements for mixed use developments in the Sydney DCP 2012.



Proposal Summary (continued):

The proposal is not seen to exhibit design excellence as per the requirements of 6.21 of the Sydney LEP 2012 and is not seen to integrate into the local area or the immediate surrounds of the site. Four submissions were received as a result of the notification and advertisement of the application. The submission raised the following concerns:

• The impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents from noise being created and that a boarding house is not in keeping with the area.

• Non-compliances with the planning controls

• The design of the building and presentation to

the street and within the context of the neighbouring heritage item and overall heritage conservation area.

• Overdevelopment of the site

• Potential fire hazards created by the proposal.

• No parking provided.

The concerns raised as part of the submissions were considered as part of the assessment of this application.

Summary Recommendation:

This proposal is recommended for refusal.

Development Controls:

(i) State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

(ii) State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

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

(iv) Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Gazetted 14 December 2012, as amended)

(v) Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (in force on 14 December 2012, as amended)

Attachments:

A - Architectural Drawings and Photomontages



RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that consent be refused for Development Application No. D/2016/751 for the following reasons:

(1) The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is not in the public interest contrary to Section 79C(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(2) The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the controls and standards for boarding houses specified in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Section 4.4.1 of the Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (Sydney DCP 2012) and has insufficient information in regard to flooding and surveying requirements.

(3) The proposal does not provide for bicycle parking as per the requirements in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Sydney DCP 2012.

(4) No BASIX certificate has been submitted as per SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 as part of the application nor sufficient information required to satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land.

(5) The proposal fails to exhibit design excellence, as it does not achieve a high standard of architectural design, material and detailing appropriate to the site and surrounding area. The proposal does not result in good internal amenity and design and, as such, does not comply with Clause 6.21 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.

(6) The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio under Clause 4.4 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, resulting in an overdevelopment of the site, and an inappropriate scale and intensity of development. The proposal has not demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards. The proposal fails to achieve a better outcome by contravening the floor space ratio development standard and therefore fails to satisfy Clause 4.6 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.

(7) The proposal exceeds the height in storeys control under section 4.2.1 and does not comply with the internal floor to ceiling heights and floor to floor heights of Section 4.2.1.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(8) The proposal does not satisfy the requirements for amenity, building setbacks, waste minimisation, as well as heating and cooling infrastructure, as stipulated in Section 4.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012 for mixed use developments.

(9) The proposal does not exhibit integration with the surrounds and will result in detrimental privacy and noise impacts to the residential property located to the rear of the site at 181 St Johns Road.



BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. The site is rectangular in shape with an area of 90.63sqm. The site is located near the splayed corner where Ross Street and St Johns Road intersect. There is no rear access to the site as it is bounded by the residential property at 181 St Johns Road. Currently located on the site is a dry cleaning business.

2. The splayed corner where Ross Street meets St Johns Road is characterised by single storey buildings that include the Scouts Hall, electricity substation and a laundromat on the subject site. The buildings around the splayed corner along St Johns Road to the northeast are attached 1-3 storey attached Victorian era terraces.

3. Ross Street is predominately characterised by 2-3 storey buildings whereas St Johns Road is primarily 1-3 storeys. The exceptions to this are 23-25 Ross Street and 30 Ross Street (AAPT) building that are the only 4 storey buildings in the vicinity of the site. The AAPT building has a 3 storey frontage to Ross Street, but a 4 storey frontage to St Johns Road as the site falls towards the south east.

4. The local area is characterised by attached Victorian era terraces (residential and commercial), walk-up apartment blocks, converted warehouse buildings, substation and more recent commercial/residential development. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of uses including retail, commercial, residential, food and drink premises, infrastructure and community uses.

5. The site is not listed as a heritage item, but is classified as a neutral building in the Hereford and Forest Lodge Heritage Conservation Area.

6. The site is located next to a heritage listed substation at 19 Ross Street. It is listed as I2249 (Electricity Substation No 267 including interior).

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

Figure 1: Aerial view of the site (site in red)

N

Site



Figure 2: Looking at the site from the corner of Ross Street and St Johns Road.

Figure 3: Site viewed from across Ross Street.

Site

Site

23-25 Ross Street

AAPT building

23-25 Ross Street

181 St Johns Road

Heritage listed substation



Figure 4: Looking at the site and neighbouring heritage listed substation from across Ross Street.

Figure 5: View of site frontage from the footpath looking to the southeast.

Site

Site

Heritage listed substation



Figure 6: Looking northeast along St Johns Road

Figure 7: Looking at opposite corner of the Ross Street and St Johns Road intersection.

181 St Johns Road

Site



Figure 8: View of the AAPT building opposite the site.

Figure 9: Looking northwest along Ross Street from site.



PROPOSAL

8. The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey building and construction of a new 4 storey mixed use building with a retail/commercial tenancy on the ground level and a boarding house for the 3 levels above. The boarding house is to have 5 rooms to cater for 6 occupants.

9. In detail the development consists of:

(a) Ground Level

(i) Retail/commercial space for a cafe with a total area of 55.4sqm and associated accessible bathroom.

(ii) Entrance to boarding house, mailboxes and bin storage area.

Figure 10: Proposed ground level floor plan



(b) First level

(i) One accessible double room unit with kitchen and bathroom with a total area of 31.1sqm with access to a deck. The room is accessed through the communal open space. The deck is divided by a privacy screen and has a sliding screen on the building face. The function for this privacy screen has not been specified, as the deck is not shared on this level.

(ii) Communal open space area with northwest (side) and northeast (rear) facing openings with a total area of 20.8sqm. Both openings are on the boundary and the space is similar to an under croft as it is not open to the sky (level 2 is the ceiling) and is therefore, predominately enclosed.

Figure 11: Proposed first level floor plan.



(c) Second Level

(i) Two single bedrooms, both with kitchen, bathroom and deck facing Ross Street. Bedroom 02 has a total area of 27 square metres and bedroom 02 has a total area of 23 square metres.

Figure 12: Proposed second level floor plan.

(d) Third Level

(i) Two single bedrooms, both with kitchen, bathroom and access to a shared deck facing Ross Street. Bedroom 04 has a total area of 22 square metres and bedroom 05 has a total of 27 square metres.



Figure 13: Proposed third level floor plan.

10. The building is proposed to have a sloped roof behind a parapet wall.

11. All of the decks facing Ross Street are proposed to have frosted glass balustrades. From levels 1 to 2 these will be partially obscured by the sliding screens.

12. The ground level is proposed to have a dark grey/black face brick finish (Expressions Blackstone from Austral Bricks), levels 1 and 2 will have rendered brickwork (natural white) as the finish, and level 3 is to have dark grey metal zinc cladding as the finish.

13. The sliding screens to the facade of at levels 1 and 2 are to be timber.



Figure 14: Photomontage of the site looking towards St Johns Road

Figure 15: Photomontage of the site looking from the intersection St Johns Road and Ross Street.

14. Plans of the proposed development are in Attachment A of this report.

Site

Site



HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

15. Email correspondence was made with Council on 22 July 2015 in regards to pre-lodgement requirements and general queries relating to the proposed development. The last correspondence regarding the requirements for the model was on 9 May 2016 No Pre-DA meeting was held. A summary of matters discussed is below:

(a) Advice was given in regard to the requirements for the submission of physical models.

(b) The requirement for a traffic report/statement to vary the parking standards.

(c) A preliminary site investigation report to determine contamination from past uses would be required.

(d) Advice that an acoustic report may be requested by Council’s Health unit during the assessment of any application for a boarding house.

(e) Details on how stormwater discharges from the site.

16. A letter requesting the application be withdrawn was sent on 21 December 2016. The letter outlined deficiencies with the design that were of a scale and nature that could not be dealt with via amendments or conditions of consent.

17. In summary, issues highlighted in the letter were as follows

(a) Non-compliances with planning controls – FSR, Building Height, flooding and specific provisions within the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Sydney DCP 2012 regarding boarding houses.

(b) Ausgrid comments – Requirements regarding separation from ventilation and duct openings as well as the requirements for fire rated walls within 3 metres of the substation ventilation openings. Other matters regarding further consultation with Ausgrid prior to the commencement of work.

(c) Urban Design and Heritage issues – The issues highlighted related to concerns over the presentation of the building to Ross Street, the facade design, materials used, colours, finishes, the design of the communal open space and lack of communal living room.

(d) Waste management – It was outlined that a waste management plan in order to comply with section 3.14.1 of the Sydney DCP 2012 and City of Sydney Waste Minimisation in New Development Policy 2005 is required. Issues were also raised in regards to the bin storage area located in a narrow corridor and the lack of provisions for a separate commercial waste area.

(e) Surveying requirements - As the current boundaries of the site are poorly defined and the survey submitted is not a boundary survey, the letter outlined that a redefinition plan and survey should be completed. The applicant was also advised that the building is designed over an existing easement for tramway cables and that this should be further investigated upon the lodgement of any future application.



(f) Further detail to the Statement of Environmental Effects – The applicant was advised that any future proposal should have an appropriate level of documentation addressing Council’s controls including Section 4.4.1 of the DCP and Clause 4.6 of the Sydney LEP 2012.

(g) Compliance with the BCA – The letter outlined that the submitted BCA report stated that an alternate solution would be required for the chair lift on the staircase. This is to be considered upon any new design and application.

(h) Health and Building requirements for site contamination and noise – The applicant was advised that additional information was required including a Hazardous Material Survey Report and an acoustic report. It was advised that this should form part of any future application.

(i) A summary of the main issues raised in the public submissions was also provided.

18. Subsequently, the letter requested that the application be withdrawn and that the issues highlighted be considered in the instance where a new application for a boarding house or other type of development is proposed for the site. No response has been received from the applicant.

ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

(a) Environmental Planning Instruments and DCPs.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

20. The aim of SEPP 55 is to ensure that a change of land use will not increase the risk to health, particularly in circumstances where a more sensitive land use is proposed.

21. A preliminary site investigation was submitted with the development application. As the current use is a dry cleaning business, it is considered that the site would be contaminated as a result of this use. Following a review of the preliminary site investigation, Council’s Health and Building Unit stated that further information would be required in the form of a Hazardous Materials survey in order to determine that the site is suitable for the proposed use.

22. Based on the information submitted with the proposal, the applicant has not demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposal as required by the SEPP.

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

23. As each unit can be considered to be self-contained, a BASIX certificate is required in this instance and should form part of the application.

24. A BASIX Certificate has not been submitted with the development application.



State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

25. The provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

Clause 45

26. 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 is adjacent to an electricity substation.

27. In accordance with the Clause, the application was referred to Energy Australia for a period of 21 days who recommended conditions and requirements. The following 3 requirements are made specific reference to as they impact upon the design of the proposal.

(a) The substation ventilation openings, including substation duct openings and louvered panels, must be separated from building air intake and exhaust openings, natural ventilation openings and boundaries of adjacent allotments, by separation distances which meet the requirements of all relevant authorities, building regulations, BCA and Australian Standards including AS 1668.2: The use of ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings - Mechanical ventilation in buildings.

(b) In addition to above, Ausgrid requires the substation ventilation openings, including duct openings and louvered panels, to be separated from building ventilation system air intake and exhaust openings, including those on buildings on adjacent allotments, by not less than 6 metres.

(c) Exterior parts of buildings within 3 metres in any direction from substation ventilation openings, including duct openings and louvered panels, must have a fire rating level (FRL) of not less than 180/180/180 where the substation contains oil-filled equipment. For further details on fire segregation requirements refer to Ausgrid's Network Standard 113.

28. In consideration of the above, any proposed openings on the subject site will need to be redesigned so that they maintain suitable separation. Furthermore, any exterior parts of the building within a 3 metre radius of any openings will need to be fire rated appropriately.

29. As the proposal is not recommended for approval as discussed later in this report, the recommended conditions have not been included in the Determination Notice. The applicant has been made aware of the above requirements via the letter discussed in the History section of this report.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (Deemed SEPP)

30. The site is located within the designated hydrological catchment of Sydney Harbour and is subject to the provisions of the above SREP.

31. The Sydney Harbour Catchment Planning Principles must be considered in the carrying out of development within the catchment. The key relevant principles include:



(a) protect and improve hydrological, ecological and geomorphologic processes;

(b) consider cumulative impacts of development within the catchment;

(c) improve water quality of urban runoff and reduce quantity and frequency of urban run-off; and

(d) protect and rehabilitate riparian corridors and remnant vegetation.

32. The site is within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and eventually drains into the Harbour. However, the site is not located in the Foreshores Waterways Area or adjacent to a waterway and therefore, with the exception of the objective of improved water quality, the objectives of the SREP are not applicable to the proposed development. The development is consistent with the controls contained with the deemed SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

33. The SEPP aims to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing and to facilitate the delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of identifying non-discretionary development standards.

34. Under Clause 29, non-compliance with any of the following standards must not be used to refuse consent.

Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse a boarding house

Standard Compliance Comment

1(a) –density and scale expressed as FSR

- cannot be refused with FSR of 2:1 i.e. Sydney LEP FSR of 1.5:1 and SEPP 0.5:1 bonus.

No The FSR proposed does not comply with this standard. The proposed FSR of 2.17:1 results in a non-compliance of 0.17 or 17.74sqm (8.6%).

The applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 variation seeking to justify the contravention of Clause 4.4 of the Sydney LEP 2012. See discussion in the Issues section of this report.

2(a) Building Height - if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land.

Yes The proposal complies with the 12m maximum building height that applies to the site.





2(b) Landscaped Area - if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

Yes There is no landscape treatment proposed to the front setback at ground level. The subject section of Ross Street is not characterised by any landscaping at the front setback at ground level.

2(c) Solar Access - where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

N/A No communal living area is proposed as part of this proposal.

2(d) Private Open Space - if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i) one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers.

(ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation.

No Communal open space with an area of 20.8sqm is proposed on level 1 of the proposal. While communal open space is provided, it is not “open” space (as level 2 forms as the ceiling) and is predominately enclosed. Therefore, the proposal does not comply.

As there is no manager proposed on site part (ii) does not apply in this instance.





2(e) Parking - if

(i) in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii) in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii) in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site.

Non-compliance considered acceptable

The site is located in an accessible area. No car parking spaces are provided and therefore, does not comply. The proposal was discussed with Council’s Transport Planning unit who outlined that in the context of the site, the departure from providing these spaces are acceptable.

2(f) Accommodation Size - if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii) 16 square metres in any other case.

Yes Each single boarding room is greater than 12 square metres. The double accessible room has a total area of 25 square metres and complies.





(3) A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

No All 5 boarding rooms have separate kitchen and bathroom facilities.

However, the kitchen facilities do not meet the minimum size requirements as discussed in section 4.4.1.2 of the DCP compliance table later in this report.

35. Clause 30 states that a consent authority must not grant development consent to which Division 3 applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

Clause 30 – Standards for boarding house

1(a) If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided

No No communal living room is provided in the proposal and therefore, does not comply.

1(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

Yes Double bedroom 01 is the largest room at 25 square metres and therefore, complies

1(c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers,

Yes No rooms provide sleeping facilities for more than 2 persons.

1(d) Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities available for use of each lodger

Yes The proposal provides for bathroom and kitchen facilities within each room.

1(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,

N/A The proposed boarding house is to have a maximum of 6 lodgers at any time. Therefore, this provision does not apply.



Clause 30 – Standards for boarding house

1(g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,

Yes The ground floor has been designated as a retail/commercial tenancy.

1(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms

No No bicycle or motorcycle parking is provided for on site. However, bicycle parking is still required and is not provided. See further discussion in the Issues section of this report. No Clause 4.6 variation was submitted with the application.

Clause 30A

36. Consideration must be given as to whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local heritage conservation area. Along Ross Street and parts of St Johns Road, sites of a similar size are characterised by 2-3 storey buildings. Larger sites such as the AAPT building and 23-25 Ross Street are the only buildings where 4 storeys are present. The proposal results in a condensed and congested appearance to the site frontage. This is further exacerbated by the proposed setbacks on levels 1 and 2 which is also not consistent with the heritage conservation area that the site is located in.

37. Furthermore, the proposal has a detracting impact upon the neighbouring heritage listed substation at 19 Ross Street due to the bulk of the projecting decks/balconies on level 1 and 2 at street frontage. In addition to this, the material finish and colours to the facade are not considered to be compatible with neighbouring buildings or within the area.

38. The proposal is not considered to integrate well into the surrounding area as it will have detrimental amenity impacts to the residential property at 181 St Johns Road to the rear as is discussed further in this report. Therefore, the development as proposed is not considered to be compatible with the character of the local area.

Sydney LEP 2012

39. The site is located within the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone. The proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of a retail/commercial ground floor and a boarding house for the 3 levels above is permissible with consent.

40. 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 Yes A maximum height of 12m is permitted.

A maximum height of 12m is proposed and therefore, complies.

4.4 Floor Space Ratio No A maximum FSR of 1.5:1 is permitted. The proposed development is also allowed up to 0.5:1 as per the provisions of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The total allowable FSR is 2:1. A FSR of 2.17:1 is proposed and does not comply.

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

No The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio development standard prescribed under Clause 4.4 of the LEP.

See discussion under the heading Issues.

5.10 Heritage conservation

No The site is a neutral building within the Forest Lodge Heritage Conservation area. The application as proposed is not considered to be in keeping with the heritage conservation area. See discussion under the heading Heritage and Urban Design in the Issues section of the report.

Division 4 Design excellence

No The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of this control. See discussion in the Issues section of this report.

Part 7 Local provisions—general

7.14 Acid Sulfate Soils Yes The site is located in an area classified as Class 5. The proposal will not disturb more than 1 tonne of soil and it is not likely to lower the water table.

7.15 Flood planning No The site is identified as being on flood prone land and would require the finished floor levels at the ground floor to be raised in order to satisfy Council’s requirements. Refer to discussion in the Issues section of this report.



Sydney DCP 2012

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

2. Locality Statements – 2.6 Glebe and Forest Lodge

The subject site is located in the 2.6.2 Ross Street locality. The proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the boarding house with a commercial ground floor is not considered to be in keeping with the unique character or design principles of the area. The character statement of the DCP outlines for this locality that future development on the corner of St Johns Road and Ross Street is to help integrate and enliven the area. Furthermore, the principles state that:

(a) Development must achieve and satisfy the outcomes expressed in the character statement and supporting principles.

(b) Development is to respond to and complement heritage items and contributory buildings within heritage conservation areas, including streetscapes and lanes.

(e) Align buildings to the street and introduce uses that interact with the street at the ground and first floor level.

The proposal has not demonstrated compliance as the presentation to the street is not in keeping with the overall character of existing buildings. It competes with the heritage item at 19 Ross Street in terms of ground floor finish, bulk and scale and has detrimental amenity impacts to 181 St Johns Road (as discussed later). The development as proposed is not considered to integrate into the area.

3. General Provisions


3.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development

No No BASIX certificate was submitted. Therefore, the proposal does not satisfy the relevant provisions of this section of the DCP.

3.7 Water and Flood Management

No The site is identified as being on flood prone land and would require the finished floor levels at the ground floor to be raised in order to satisfy Council’s requirements. Refer to the discussion Issues section of the report.



3. General Provisions


3.9 Heritage No The site is a neutral building within the Forest Lodge Heritage Conservation area. The application as proposed is not considered to be in keeping with the heritage conservation area. See discussion under the heading Heritage and Urban Design in the Issues section of the report.

3.11 Transport and Parking

No The proposal does not provide any designated car, bicycle or motorcycle parking spaces. Refer to the discussion in the Issues section of this report.

3.12 Accessible Design No An accessibility report has been submitted stating that accessible access can be achieved to the building. It is noted that access to the accessible room on level 1 is proposed via a chair lift along the stairs. The use of this chair lift on a narrow communal stairwell is not practical given the constrained nature of the space.

3.13 Social and Environmental Responsibilities

Yes The proposed development provides adequate passive surveillance and is generally designed in accordance with the CPTED principles.

3.14 Waste

No Any proposed development of this type is to be accompanied by a waste management plan in order to comply with section 3.14.1 of the Sydney DCP 2012 and City of Sydney Waste Minimisation in New Development Policy 2005. No waste management plan was provided.

The bin storage area is located in the entry corridor to the boarding house. There are no apparent provisions for where or how commercial waste is to be stored. The combination of the narrow corridor and small storage area indicate that the space may not be appropriate for waste collection and storage for the whole building.



4. Development Types

4.2 Mixed Use Developments

Development Control Achieved Discussion

4.2.1 Building height No A maximum height of 3 storeys is permitted. The proposal is 4 storeys in height and therefore, does not comply.

Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the minimum floor to ceiling heights required at ground floor and in habitable rooms as discussed in the Issues section of the report.

4.2.2 Building setbacks No The ground level and level 3 are setback from the site frontage, whereas levels 1 and 2 have decks to the front boundary. The neighbouring heritage item at 19 Ross Street is setback at ground level whereas 15 Ross Street has no setback. The existing building on the subject site is not setback from the front boundary.

The front setbacks from ground level to level 2 are not consistent with buildings along the street frontage or heritage conservation area. The setbacks proposed do not reinforces the desired future character of the area. It is considered that setbacks that are stepped back from street frontage on upper levels would be acceptable.

4.2.3 Amenity No

The shadow diagrams submitted show that the proposed development would not overshadow more than 50% of nearby private open spaces for more 2 hours. However, no diagrams were provided showing whether the communal open space on the site achieves the necessary direct solar access.

No acoustic reports have been provided with the development. Refer to the Internal Referrals section of this report for further discussion.




4.2 Mixed Use Developments

Development Control Achieved Discussion

4.2.6 Waste Minimisation No No waste management plan was provided as discussed in Section 3.14 of the LEP compliance table. The building does not provide sufficient facilities to manage waste as there is no designated commercial waste storage area or bulky items waste areas.

It has not been demonstrated that noise and odour from any commercial waste will not impact upon the boarding house residents.

4.2.7 Heating and Cooling Infrastructure

No No details have been provided in regards to heating and cooling infrastructure.

4.2.8 Letterboxes Yes Letterboxes are provided at the ground level entry to the building.

Section 4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation

42. Having regard to the controls and provisions of Section 4.4.1 the following has not been reasonably addressed resulting in a recommendation for refusal due to substandard accommodation and lack of facilities provided to the proposed boarding rooms.

43. The design of the development is inconsistent with the objectives of DCP 2012 Clause 4.4.1 (a) to ‘ensure an acceptable level of amenity and accommodation in boarding houses to meet the needs of residents and owners’.




4.4 Other development types and uses - 4.4.1 Boarding houses and student accommodation


4.4.1.2 Bedrooms No The overall bedroom size and en suite/shower sizes comply with the control. The kitchens in all of the rooms do not achieve the required 2sqm and no details of the cupboards, shelves and microwaves are provided. Single bedrooms 02 - 05 do not comply with the required 1.5sqm (within the bedroom size) for wardrobe space. No laundry facilities are provided within each room.

4.4.1.3 Communal Kitchen Areas

Does not apply

Each room is to have its own kitchen area and therefore, the control does not apply in this instance.

4.4.1.4 Communal Living Areas and Open Space

No See discussion in the Issues section of this report.

4.4.1.5 Bathroom, Laundry and Drying Facilities

No No laundry areas have been designated on the plans. There are no practical areas within the building for the locations of laundry facilities other than the bedrooms. This will result in a reduction of space in each room. Furthermore, no details have been provided in regards to any drying facilities being located in the communal open space.

4.4.1.6 Amenity, Safety and Privacy

No The proposal does not satisfy the requirements for an acoustic report to be submitted with the application.




4.4 Other development types and uses - 4.4.1 Boarding houses and student accommodation


4.4.1.7 Plan of Management

No A “draft” plan of management was submitted as part of this application. This plan of management does not provide the following information required by the control:

• Further information is required in regards to the specific furnishings provided for the occupants within each room.

ISSUES

Non-compliance with the maximum FSR and Exception to the Development Standard

44. The applicant submits that:

(a) The resultant building will not result in any material difference in terms of apparent bulk and scale when viewed from Ross Street or when viewed from adjoining sites in comparison with a development with a compliant floor space.

(b) The proposed development complies with the Council building height control.

(c) The additional floor space does not contribute to any additional shadow impacts or adverse amenity impacts.

(d) The proposal achieves compliance with all other development standards for the project.

(e) The proposal is supported by the Statement of Heritage Impact.

(f) There is no issue in relation to the proposed building representation to Ross Street.

(g) When tested against the assessment of compatibility as expressed in the Planning Principle – Compatibility between buildings and surrounds, the proposal is satisfactory because the building, building height is compatible with existing developments and the resultant development will enhance the existing streetscape.

45. It is considered that strict numeric compliance with the development standard is not unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal will result in an unacceptable bulk and form. It has not been demonstrated that there is a need to breach the FSR standard on account of additional floor space required to achieve compliance with other controls that apply to the proposal.



46. The proposal will present a detrimental privacy outcome for the neighbouring sites, does not minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of that locality and is not consistent with the objectives of both the floor space ratio development standard and B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone of the Sydney LEP 2012; to provide for appropriate land residential land uses or reflect the desired character of the locality in which it is located.

47. The requirements of Clause 4.6(4) of the Sydney LEP 2012 are not met as the written request submitted by the Applicant seeking to justify contravention of Clause 4.4 has not demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, or that compliance with the FSR requirements is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

48. For these reasons the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest and the Clause 4.6 exception is not supported.

Design Excellence and Heritage

49. The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements as stipulated in Clause 6.21 of the DCP. The following issues are raised in regard to the proposal:

(a) Ground Level

(i) The dark grey/black (Expressions Blackstone from Austral Bricks) face brick finish of the ground level is not considered to be acceptable as it competes with the face brick of the neighbouring heritage listed substation. A contrasting finish would be considered to be more acceptable.

(ii) No details have been provided in regards to services for the ground floor commercial/retail tenancy such as waste storage areas, ducting/ventilation and how these would travel through the building towards exit points.

(b) First Level

(i) A communal living room (as distinct from communal open space), has not been provided as required by both the SEPP and the DCP. The communal living room is required to receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter, should have a minimum area of 12.5sqm and a minimum width of 3m.

(ii) The DCP requires 20sqm of communal open space. The proposed 20.8sqn complies with this provision. However, the proposed communal open space is on the first floor and is not ‘open space’ in the true sense of the word, does not provide soft or porous surfaces for 50% of the space, and is likely to have unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjacent accessible room. This is due to noise and privacy impacts as it is also provides access to the room.



(iii) The proposed space also relies on borrowed amenity (sunlight and ventilation) over two neighbouring properties. The site does not benefit from existing amenity and there are no easements to secure the amenity of the communal open space. It is also unclear, given the need to provide fire protection, how the required 2 hours of mid-winter sunlight to 50% of the space will be achieved.

(iv) The communal open space looks directly onto the private open space of the residential property at 181 St Johns Road from the northeast opening and is not screened (only has frosted glazed balustrades 1m in height) which contravenes the requirements in the DCP.

(v) As this communal open space is the only proposed communal area for the building the potential for detrimental noise and privacy impacts is great and is considered to be unreasonable towards the private open space of 181 St Johns Road as it changes the relationship at this boundary between the two sites.

(vi) The privacy screen dividing the deck should be removed as it belongs to one boarding room. Dividing it is unnecessary and makes it less useable.

(c) Third Level/Top Floor

(i) Given the previous comments on height, the top floor is not appropriate and should be deleted.

(d) Balustrades

(i) Along the street and within the conservation area, balustrades on decks and balconies above ground floor are characterised by ornate metal Victorian balustrades, simple metal balustrades, solid materials or more modern clear glazed metal framed balustrades (such as 23-25 Ross Street where it is setback from the street).

(ii) The proposed frosted glass balustrades are not supported in this instance as it is not keeping with the area. A vertical metal balustrade or solid balustrade for privacy (masonry, concrete, metal etc.) or combination of both is preferable to better relate to the character of the area.

(e) Height, Scale and Bulk

(i) The proposal will result in a significant increase in height, scale and bulk to the site compared to existing. The Sydney DCP 2012 prescribes a 3 storey height control for the site (as shown in Figure 11). The existing site and immediate neighbouring properties are single storey buildings. The proposal will result in a 4 storey structure (with ground and level 3 being setback from the street by 1.7m). As stated earlier, Ross Street is predominately characterised by 2-3 storey buildings. The only 4 storey building on the same frontage is the residential apartments at 23-25 Ross Street which is setback from the front boundary. For this building the third storey is setback from the front boundary (approximately 3m) and the fourth storey set further back (approximately 7m).



(ii) Due to the splayed street corner and the neighbouring single storey buildings (15, 19 Ross Street and 181 St Johns Road), the site will be viewed as an exposed/prominent location (as evident by Figure 2 where the fourth storey of 23-25 Ross Street can be clearly seen). Having 3 storeys in this location will be in keeping with the majority of the overall characteristics of the street; notably where there are no setbacks from street frontage above ground level.

Figure 16: Height of buildings in storeys (2 storey in yellow and 3 storey in brown).

(iii) The design of the building results in the bulk being predominately at street frontage on levels 1 and 2 on account of the front setbacks/projecting decks. This resultant appearance of the building is one where the bulk and scale is to the middle and detracts from the neighbouring heritage listed substation at 19 Ross Street.

(iv) Being a mixed use development, the ground floor commercial level is required to have floor to floor heights of 4.5m (minimum 3.6m floor to ceiling), and the subsequent residential levels above are required to have floor to floor heights of 3.1m (minimum 2.7m floor to ceiling) as stipulated in section 4.2.1.2 of the Sydney DCP 2012.

(v) The proposal does not comply as it has floor to floor heights of 3.4m on the ground level and floor to floor heights of 2.7m (2.4 floor to ceiling) for the 3 boarding house levels above.

(vi) In order to comply with the DCP requirements with the 4 storeys proposed, the development would be a minimum 13.8m in height without considering elements such as the roof form or parapets. This means that having a 4 storey building as proposed would have significant height, bulk and scale impacts. Compliance with the DCP requirements and the building height control in the LEP support the appropriateness of a 3 storey building in this location.

Site



(vii) Scale and bulk impacts will be reduced as 3 storeys with compliant internal floor to floor heights will reduce the condensed and congested presentation of the proposal and will provide better amenity for the occupants of the rooms.

Flood Planning

50. The subject site is flood affected and is within Johnstone Creek catchment area. The application was referred to the Public Domain Unit who advised that further information/action was required to deal with the flooding issue.

51. The 1% AEP flood level along the site frontage is 26.06m AHD. As a result of this, the finished floor level at ground floor for this development is required to be set at or above 26.06m AHD in accordance with the City’s Interim Floodplain Management Policy. This means that the current proposal would not comply with the building height development standard as it would have to be raised by a further 0.17m. When considered with the internal floor to ceiling heights as discussed above, the development would result in a height of 13.97m and contravene the building height control. As discussed above, having a 3 storey development will comply with the 12m building height control and the necessary internal clearance heights.

Transport and parking

52. The proposal does not satisfy the requirements for the parking onsite in regards to the provisions in the DCP, LEP or SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. No Clause 4.6 variation was submitted for the contravention of the SEPP development standards.

53. No motorcycle parking spaces are provided in addition to no provision of bicycle parking spaces. The application was discussed with Council’s Transport Planning Unit. It was stated that in regards to the context of the site; the lack of car and motorcycle parking spaces in addition to no bicycle parking for employees and customers (for the commercial tenancy) was considered to be acceptable in this instance.

54. However, in lieu of the inability to provide car and motorcycle parking spaces on site, bicycle parking for residential component is considered to be necessary. At least 2 secure bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided in compliance with the design principles in the relevant Australian Standards which include designated, secure and conveniently located bicycle parking. These spaces are required to be located on the ground floor as carrying the bicycles upstairs is not considered to be convenient or practical.

Other Impacts of the Development

55. A BCA compliance report was submitted that states that the development is capable of complying with the BCA subject to alternate solutions regarding the accessible staircase. As discussed elsewhere, this application is recommended to be refused.

Suitability of the site for the Development

56. The site is in a commercial/residential surrounding and amongst similar uses to that proposed. As discussed earlier in this report it is considered that the proposal is not of a nature suitable for the site. The site is suitable for a less intensive development.



INTERNAL REFERRALS

57. The application was discussed with Heritage and Urban Design Specialists; Building Services Unit; Environmental Health; Public Domain; Surveyors; Transport Planning and the Waste Management unit. Comments from these units, not discussed earlier, are detailed below.

Health and Building

58. The Health and Building Unit have stated that the proposal is unsatisfactory and that additional information is required which includes a Hazardous Materials Survey Report that must be prepared by a certified occupational hygienist. Also required is an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant assessing the likely noise impacts from the proposal.

Surveying Requirements

59. The current boundaries of the subject site are poorly defined and therefore in order to accurately establish the site boundaries and areas; a redefinition plan and survey is to be completed. It is noted that a significant area across the entire frontage of the lot is burdened by an easement for tramway cables, created by transfer no. C858851. The encumbrances from this easement affect the land as well as the airspace above. The building has been designed over this easement and will need to be further investigated in any future proposal and be extinguished if necessary.

60. The applicant has been made aware of these requirements in the letter as discussed in the History section of this report.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Notification, Advertising and Delegation (Submission(s) Received)

61. In accordance with Schedule 1 the Sydney DCP 2012, the proposed development is required to be notified and advertised. As such, the application was notified and advertised for a period of 21 days between 17 August and 8 September 2016. As a result of this notification, there were 4 objections received. In summary submissions raised the following issues:

(a) The impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents from noise being created. A boarding house is not in keeping with the area.

(b) Non-compliances with the planning controls

(c) The design of the building and presentation to the street and within the context of the neighbouring heritage item and overall heritage conservation area.

(d) Overdevelopment of the site

(e) Potential fire hazards created by the proposal.

(f) No parking provided.

Response – The issues and details raised under the above headings were considered as part of the assessment of the application. As discussed elsewhere, this application is recommended to be refused.



PUBLIC INTEREST

62. It is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental effect the context of the surrounding area and is not in the public interest. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

S94 CONTRIBUTION

63. The development is subject to a S94 contribution under the provisions of the City of Sydney Section 94 Contributions Development Contributions Plan 2006. However, as the proposal is recommended for refusal, no development contributions apply in this instance.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

64. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

CONCLUSION

65. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing single storey building and construction of a new 4 storey mixed use building with a retail/commercial tenancy on the ground level and a boarding house for the 3 levels above.

66. A Clause 4.6 variation was submitted in relation to the non-compliance with the FSR control for the Sydney LEP 2012 and (SEPP Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The proposal has not demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards. The proposal fails to achieve a better outcome by contravening the floor space ratio development standard and therefore fails to satisfy Clause 4.6 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.

67. The proposal fails to comply with a number of development standards for Boarding Houses under the Sydney DCP 2012 and in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. No Clause 4.6 was submitted to vary the bicycle and motorcycle parking provisions in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

68. The proposal results in poor amenity for future occupants as well as to nearby properties and does not demonstrate design excellence. The proposal is recommended for refusal.

GRAHAM JAHN, AM Director City Planning, Development and Transport (Navdeep Shergill, Planner)

planning and development committee - city of sydney · the proposal is not seen to exhibit design...

Documents