Item 9.9 At Council

11 December 2017

RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL

FILE: D/2017/340 DATE: 7 December 2017

TO: Lord Mayor and Councillors

FROM: Graham Jahn, Director City Planning, Development and Transport

SUBJECT: Information Relevant To Item 9.9 – Development Application: 471B Bourke Street Surry Hills - At Council - 11 December 2017

Alternative Recommendation

It is resolved that consent be granted for Development Application No. D/2017/340, subject to the conditions as detailed in Attachment A to the subject report to the Planning and Development Committee on 27 November 2017, and subject to the following amendments (additions shown in bold italics and deleted text shown in strikethrough):-

the amendment of Condition (5) such that it read as follows:

(5) DESIGN MODIFICATION

(a) The southern edge of the balconies to both the level 2 and level 3 apartment is to have a side balustrade/screen to no less than 1.6m in height so as to minimise overlooking into adjoining properties.

(b) The face brickwork is to be either rendered or bagged and coloured in a lighter neutral tone to be more in keeping with the adjoining terrace row to the north and the character and appearance of the Bourke Street North conservation area.

(c) The low brick boundary wall of the ground floor balcony fronting Bourke Street is to be setback 1 metre from the front property boundary for dense landscaping to balcony balustrade height.

The design modifications are to be submitted to and approved by the Director City Planning, Development and Transport prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

the amendment of Condition (42) such that it read as follows:

(42) LANDSCAPING OF THE SITE

The ground floor rear yard and front planer box are to include landscaping and vegetation which is to be retained and maintained thereafter. The rear yard is also to include at least one mature tree planting.

(a) Detailed landscaping is to be provided within both front setbacks of the site (being on both the northern and southern ends) and must include more ground cover and hedges, and an advanced tree within the northeast corner of the site.

2

(b) An advanced tree is to be provided within the rear garden of the site.

(c) A detailed landscape plan, drawn to scale, by a qualified landscape architect or landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, Development and Transport prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for above ground building works. The plan must include:

(i) Location of existing and proposed structures on the site including, but not limited to, existing and proposed trees, paved areas, planted areas on slab, planted areas in natural ground, lighting and other features;

(ii) Details of earthworks and soil depths including mounding and retaining walls and planter boxes (if applicable). The minimum soil depths for planting on slab must be 1,000mm for trees, 450mm for shrubs and 200mm for groundcovers;

(iii) Location, numbers, type and supply of plant species, with reference to NATSPEC (if applicable);

(iv) Details of the planting procedure and cyclical maintenance plan (including replanting if species do not survive);

(v) Details of drainage, waterproofing and watering systems.

(d) All landscaping in the approved plan is to be completed prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued.

(e) The planting is to be thereafter maintained in accordance with the cyclical maintenance plan.

Background

At the meeting of the Planning and Development Committee on 27 November 2017, concerns were raised about the form and materials of the building in the context of the Bourke Street North conservation area. The Committee requested details of the comments from the Design Advisory Panel and the City’s Heritage and Urban Design Specialists. The Committee also commented on the overshadowing of adjoining properties to the south at Nos. 70, 70A and 72A Fitzroy Street.

Form and Materials

The Design Advisory Panel reviewed both the original and amended plans. While they raised concerns about overshadowing, the Panel supported the architectural language, form and materials of the building with regard to its context.

The City’s Heritage Specialist raised no objections to the amended plans, noting that the four storey curved wall adjoining the terrace to the north is setback up to 4 metres and maintains views of the adjoining chimney.

The City’s Urban Design Specialist did raise concern about the relationship of the fourth floor with the adjoining terrace to the north, and suggested that the fourth floor be setback in line with the ridge line of the terrace. In this regard, planning staff agree with the City’s Heritage Specialist that the curved wall be setback and provide an appropriate relationship between the apartment building and the adjoining terrace, and that the adjoining chimney will still be visible.

3 The selection of Bowral Brick was considered by Councillors to be incompatible with the character and appearance of the adjoining terrace row and the Bourke Street North conservation area. In this regard, while the applicant’s architect has stated that they prefer the dark brick, they could amend the proposal to have a lighter brick.

To address this concern, the Council could amend Condition (5), as detailed above, to require the building to be either light coloured render or bagged brickwork, both to be finished in a more neutral tone in keeping with the tones of the adjoining terrace to the north. The details are to be provided to the Director City Planning, Development and Transport prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

Landscaping

Additional landscaping is recommended to the front of the site to soften the appearance of the building, including providing hedges and ground cover. An advanced tree is also recommended to be planted within the northeast, front corner of the site. The details are to be provided to the Director City Planning, Development and Transport prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

Solar access

A detailed assessment regarding overshadowing and solar access to neighbouring properties in Fitzroy Street is provided at paragraphs 26 and 27 of the officer’s report presented to the Committee on 27 November 2017.

In summary, the solar impact is as follows:

No. 70: This dwelling will see an increase in solar access from an existing 2 hours and 45 minutes, to 4 hours (to either the skylight or ground floor glazed doors);

No. 70A: The kitchen skylight of this dwelling will see a reduction in solar access from 5 hours to 3 hours. There will be no additional impact on the ground floor glazed doors which will continue to receive 1 hour and 45 minutes of solar access to at least 1 square metre. The reduction to the skylight will comply with the DCP control for overshadowing.

No. 72: This dwelling would be the most affected by the proposal and would have seen all of its solar access deleted as a result of the proposal. To address this, the applicant has approached the landowner and a development application to make alterations and additions to this dwelling has been approved. This would result in No.72 receiving 2 hours and 50 minutes of solar access to the living spaces on level 1. It is a condition on this proposal that the works to No. 72 are completed prior to any Occupation Certificate for the Bourke Street subject site.

No. 72A: This dwelling currently shadows itself because of the layout of the roof over the courtyard. The small skylight over the kitchen will continue to receive ambient light. The rear first floor windows will continue to receive solar access from 12.45pm.

It is understood that the applicants only approached No. 72, as that was the property with the greatest impact as a result of the proposal.

Graham Jahn, Director City Planning, Development and Transport

Prepared by: David Zabell, Specialist Planner

TRIM Document Number: 2017/605261

4 Attachments

Attachment A – Design Advisory Panel minutes, 4 May and 17 August 2017

Attachment B – Heritage Specialist referral, comments 24 August 2017

Attachment C – Urban Design Specialist referral, 21 August 2017

Approved

Graham Jahn, AM, Director City Planning, Development and Transport

ATTACHMENT A

DESIGN ADVISORY PANEL MINUTES, 4 MAY 2017 AND 17 AUGUST 2017

471B BOURKE STREET SURRY HILLS

1

CITY OF SYDNEY  ADVICE SHEET NO: 54/2017

DESIGN ADVISORY PANEL    

Project  471B Bourke Street, Surry Hills

Review Date  17 August 2017

Panel Present  Kerry Clare Richard Johnson Ken Maher (Chair) Peter Mould Rachel Neeson Che Wall James Weirick

COI Declaration  Nil Designer  Smart Design Studio

Proponent  Mr David Raymond

Council Officer  David Zabell Advice     

The Panel was presented with an updated development application 

for the site.  The Panel noted and recommended the following: 

The Panel does not support the current proposal on the basis that 

it does not comply with the DCP’s solar access requirements for 

neighbouring properties and proposed apartments lack adequate 

natural ventilation. Updated material does not comply with 

previous advice offered by the DAP.  

The panel does not believe that the site can accommodate four 

apartments and be compliant.  

 

1

CITY OF SYDNEY  ADVICE SHEET NO: 31/2017

DESIGN ADVISORY PANEL    

Project  471B Bourke Street, Surry Hills

Review Date  4 May 2017 Panel Present  Peter Mould (Chair) 

Kerry Clare James Weirick Richard Johnson Che Wall Rachel Neeson 

COI Declaration  None declared 

Designer  Smart Design Studio 

Proponent  Mr David Raymond 

Council Officer  David Zabell Advice     

The Panel was presented a development application for the demolition and construction of a 4‐storey apartment building containing 4 apartments and basement storage. The Panel supports the City in enforcing compliance with its controls. The Panel made the following comments and recommendations:  

Overshadowing by the development on to neighbours, resulting in 

loss of solar access in mid‐winter between 9am – 3pm is not 

acceptable and could be mitigated by reducing the size of the top 

floor.  

The Panel recommended window details be provided with respect 

to noise and ventilation requirements. 

The majority of the Panel generally supported the building’s 

architectural expression, however recognised street wall height 

has been exceeded and questioned whether the relationship 

should be better expressed/ respected.  

The Panel requested confirmation that the ADG solar access 

requirements have been met for all living areas.   

The Panel requested that the development application be brought 

back to DAP following compliance issue resolution.  

  

 

ATTACHMENT B

HERITAGE SPECIALIST REFERRAL, COMMENTS, 24 AUGUST 2017

471B BOURKE STREET SURRY HILLS

________________________________________________________________________ FILE: D/2017/340 DATE: 4 December 2017 TO: David Zabell FROM: Hui Wang ADDRESS: 471B Bourke Street Surry Hills PROPOSAL: demolition of auto workshop and erection of a 4 storey apartment building _______________________________________________________________ I refer to the following documents received for this report: Drawing set by Smart Design Studio dated and numbered ; Statement of Heritage impact statement by Urbis dated 14 March 2017; Statement of Environmental Effects by; Heritage Status: Heritage Item: No Non-statutory listings: No Conservation Area: Yes – C59 Bourke St North Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes Hopetoun Hotel at 416 Bourke St Archaeological potential: Description of Site The site is adjacent to the intersection of Bourke and Fitzroy Streets and has a frontage facing Bourke St. Currently a single storey auto garage setting back from Bourke St stands on the site. The site is surrounded by double storey Victorian era terrace houses. Significance/history of the Building The existing building is identified as being detractive in the Conservation Area Contributory Building Map.

HERITAGE REFERRAL

HIS report suggests the existing structure was built in c1952. The history is summarised in the following assessment. Site context: The building is within the Bourke St North Conservation Area, which features predominantly with 2-storey mid to late Victorian era terrace houses. Assessment of Heritage Impact Demolition of existing structure Acceptable. The existing structure on the site has no heritage significance and does not date from the significant layers of developments of the conservation area. It is not considered contribute to the character of the conservation area. Infill apartment building The proponent has sought for pre-DA advice on the application. Heritage section informally commented (December 2016) on the pre-DA plan. The plan was considered largely acceptable but further amendments were recommended. The advised amendments include reducing the visual prominence of the first and 2nd level balconies and reconsideration of the ground level unit’s layout to improve its privacy and relationship with the street. The DA plan departs from the pre-DA plan. While the DA plan shows a two-component configuration of the building, the pre-DA has 3 components. Notably the double storey component of the pre-DA at the front elevation is removed and the 4 storey wall directly exposed to Bourke St. In addition, the visual prominence of the 3 storey component is increased by more exposed masonry walls, reduced front setback and larger balconies. The 4th storey has a smaller setback from the front than the pre-DA plan. The site has a 15m, 4-storey building height control, but a two-storey street frontage height control in the DCP map. Similarly the terraces at 70-72A Fitzroy St and 473 Bourke St have the same controls. It is understood that the intention of the 2 storey street frontage height control is to make the redevelopments at the 15 height zone correspond to the two storey terraces facing Bourke Street and Fitzroy Street respectively. It is also noted that the terrace houses at 70-72A Fitzroy St are identified as being contributory to the conservation area. They are to stay in the future redevelopments. The two storey street wall height control by the DCP is a sensible consideration to character of the conservation area and is able to provide a proper height transition to the new development at the block corner.

The pre-DA plan was regarded largely acceptable as it provides a transitional building elements on the northern part of the façade and it mitigates its impact on the gable wall and chimney at No.471A Bourke St. The current proposal provides a simplified form but increases its contrast with the neighbouring traditional terraces. The contrast is perceived though a different height and scale from Bourke St. In particular the 4 storey height is directly presented on Bourke St and contrasting with its 2 storey northern neighbours. Notably the 4th storey setback from the front street is considerably reduced and it becomes more visually prominent. In addition, the building looks more solid and heavy due to the removal of the deeper shadow lines surrounding the glazing. The proposal is assessed to have adverse impact on the conservation area:

It does not comply with DCP street wall height control, which is 2 storeys for the whole corner of the block;

It does not provide a proper height transition on Bourke St and has a poor relationship with its northern neighbours;

The 4 storey height and scale directly presented on Bourke St is out of character and scale of the contributory buildings along the street and in the conservation area;

The proposed large balconies directly on Bourke St boundary emphasize the building’s 3 storey height and form. The recessive form of the brick wall also makes the balconies protrusive. They are not consistent with DCP street wall height control or in keeping with the character of the conservation area. The first level balcony also appears to have a low height above footpath;

The photomontage shows the chimney at No.471A Bourke St is largely encapsulated by the new building and its moulding affected.

Current photomontage

Pre-DA montage Archaeological potential HIS report research suggests a structure stood on the site since 1840s. The structure appeared to be a double storey masonry house building on Bourke

St boundary. By 1860s the rear timber verandah, a masonry wing and a timber shed had been added. More metal cladding accessory structures were added by 1887. By 1930 the masonry house was demolished and a shabby fruit stand stood on the site.in 1952 an application was lodged to erect an auto workshop. It is likely that the footings of the c1840s building and its outbuildings remain in place. Other buildings shown on the 1845 map were likely demolished when the current terraces on Bourke and Fitzroy St were erected. It is possible that the early cesspit and subfloor area may contain deposits of utensils and artefacts. HIS report states that “the historical development of the subject site therefore suggests that there is potential for early mid-eighteenth century fabric to be found underneath the existing raised concrete platform and possibly within the shallow subsurface area of the site”. The site is considered to have considerable archaeological potential. An archaeological assessment should be carried out prior to CC. Compliance with Heritage Controls The proposed work at current form is assessed not consistent with the heritage objectives of the LEP (C5.10.1) and DCP (C3.9), not consistent with C3.9.6 of the DCP regarding to the design of infill buildings. Recommendation The site has a different height and FSR control from the northern and western neighbouring sites. But DCP also requires the street wall height of a new building on Bourke St is to be 2 storeys to respond to the neighbouring 2 storey traditional terrace houses. The proposal appears not to take into account this requirement. As assessed above, it has adverse impact on the conservation area mainly due to its height, scale and the lack of correspondence with the neighbouring terraces. The amended pre-DA plan provides a largely acceptable heritage outcome, as the new building’s relationship with the northern neighbouring terrace houses was properly considered. If amended, the proposal should address the following matters:

Provide a height transition to the 2 storey Victorian terrace houses on the north;

Increase the front setback at 4th storey to no less than 3m from the boundary;

Mitigate visual impact on the roof, southern gable wall and chimney of No.471A Bourke St;

Reduce the visual prominence of 1st and 2nd level balconies facing Bourke St. They should have certain setbacks from site boundary or have a recessive form.

An archaeological assessment is to be requested prior to CC with any consent. The proposed excavation of the basement level may impact on the neighbouring terrace houses. Protection measures are to be taken to ensure the neighbouring premises are not undermined. Hui Wang- Heritage Specialist  

 

Further heritage comment on amended plans (REV B) 

Date: 24 August 2017 

 

The following amendments are noted: 

Reintroduction of a 2 storey component but it is located on the south part of the site; 

Lowering the south‐eastern corner from 3 storeys to 2 storeys; 

Increasing the 4 storey component’s setback from Bourke St by 1m; 

Adding visual interest of the building by employing curved wall corners; 

By introducing the 2‐storey component, the building massing is broken down on Bourke Street and 

its visual relationship with its southern neighbour is considerably improved.  I note the setback of 

the 4‐storey component at the northern boundary is more than 4m at all levels. The increase of the 

setback of the 4 storey component will reduce its visual prominence and improve the infill building’s 

relationship with its northern neighbours. In particular the setback and curving front wall provide a 

recessive gesture to the neighbouring two storey terraces. The chimney and the front part of the 

southern gable wall of No 471A Bourke St is largely exposed to the street. 

The modelling and articulation of the infill building, including the curved face brickwork walls, is 

considered a high quality design of the contemporary infill building. Its architectural quality may 

offset its inconsistence in height with the neighbouring 2 storey Victorian terraces. 

Overall I consider above changes are positive and make the proposal have acceptable heritage 

impact on the conservation area. 

The following further information is to be requested and further examined prior to any consent: 

1. Basement level plan; 

2. Construction details to demonstrate that a 2.7m floor‐to‐ceiling clearance can be achieved 

under the proposed 2.95m floor‐to‐floor height. The parapet height may have to exceed RL 

61.59 due to the need of roof drainage. 

With any consent the following heritage conditions are to be imposed: 

(1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

An archaeological assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified archaeologist must be must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Heritage Specialist prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The report must assess whether the proposed works have the potential to disturb any archaeological remains and the need for any archaeological investigation prior to commencement of any works on site. The report should also recommend measures and documentation to be undertaken during the process of demolition and excavation work.

Recommendations by the archaeological assessment are to be implemented during the process of demolition and excavation work.

Should the assessment report suggest the site may contain relics and the proposed work may disturb them, council may request the applicant to amend the proposal so that the relics are properly protected or interpreted.

(2) ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY DURING EXCAVATION

(a) Should any relics be unexpectedly discovered on the site during excavation, all excavation or disturbance to the area is to stop immediately and the Heritage Council of NSW should be informed in accordance with section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977.

(b) Should any Aboriginal objects be unexpectedly discovered then all excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and NSW Government Office of Environment and Heritage is to be informed in accordance with Section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

(c) Should any archaeological remains or Aboriginal objects be discovered, a copy of recording of the finds and the final archaeological summary report is to be submitted to Council prior to the Occupational Certificate;

(d) if the discovery is on Council’s land, Council must be informed.

(3) SITES IN THE VICINITY OF A HERITAGE ITEM/Contributory buildings

The proposed works are to ensure that neighbouring contributory buildings are to be suitably protected during the construction process. The contractor or developer must conduct consultations with the stockholders of the neighbouring heritage site, record and monitor the conditions of the contributory buildings and take suitable measures to control and minimize any risks to the heritage fabric during construction. The protection measures should be incorporated into the construction management plan. Details of the protection plan must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Urban Design and Heritage Manager prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT C

URBAN DESIGN SPECIALIST REFERRAL, 21 AUGUST 2017

471B BOURKE STREET SURRY HILLS

1

David M Zabell

From: Allison CroninSent: Monday, 21 August 2017 4:13 PMTo: David M ZabellCc: Hui WangSubject: D/2017/340 471B Bourke Street Surry Hills

David,  I have reviewed the revised DA package and make the following urban design comments:  

1. Revised Buk & Form: The revised proposal has reduced the street frontage to 2 storeys at the southern street alignment as per previous comments. This creates a more appropriate relationship with 473 Fitzroy Street and this aspect of the proposal is now supported. In addition, the new blade wall introduced to the north of the lower terraces will provide additional privacy to these apartments. However, no substantial change has been made to the NE corner where 4 storeys are proposed against the two storey terrace. The pre‐DA distribution of bulk is preferred where the height adjacent to the terrace was in the order of 3 storeys and an additional storey was set back from this. The revised proposal rounds the external corners and though this is a positive refinement in terms of softening the edges of the building, setting the 4 storey wall further back, and allowing more of the adjacent chimney to be visible, the bulk impact is the same. A more appropriate response to the change in height would be to provide a transition where the new building is no higher than the ridge of the adjacent terrace at the location of the ridge. It may be appropriate (depending on overshadowing) to have greater height (4 storeys) beyond this. 

2. Solar Access: Is currently non‐compliant at 25%. Apartment 1: receives 2 hours from 1‐3pm   Apartments 2, 3 and 4: receive solar access from 9am to around 10.15am. After this time, the azimuth angle is too oblique to the façade to provide a useable square metre of sun within the living space. If the living room window was slightly re‐orientated to the north, better solar access could be achieved, however, this raises BCA issues as the window is in closer proximity to the boundary. I recommend that you check this with Building. Apartment 4 has skylights above the bedroom and the kitchen. The material submitted does not demonstrate that this provides 1 square metre of sun that is useable (i.e. sunlight that provides 15 minutes sun to someone sitting for example). The skylight could easily be re‐designed to provide adequate 

2

sun. This would allow 50% of apartments to achieve the 2 hours minimum. Although the west façade appears to be capable of receiving 2 hours of solar access from 1‐3pm, the changes to the plan to achieve this would provide a less desirable outcome in terms of overlooking of the ground level private open space and adjacent properties. 

3. Cross Ventilation: Complies  4. Acoustics: The latest acoustic letter states that only bedroom LAeq criteria cannot be achieved. Trickle Vents 

are proposed for bedrooms however no details are provided which confirm the adequacy of the size shown on the drawings. It is likely that a much larger geometric area on the façade is required to make up for the loss of area caused by fly screens and acoustic attenuation. Additional information must be provided by both ventilation and acoustic experts to confirm the adequacy of the alternate ventilation strategy. Peer review by a ventilation expert may assist in wording a condition in any approval. 

5. Visual Privacy: The drawings do not indicate how visual privacy is achieved for the second bedroom in Apartment 1 which has a window almost on the street boundary with a sill height of around 1.2m. This could be addressed with translucent glazing. Additionally, the window is shown as an outward opening casement window (side hinged). Although this is marginally set back from the boundary, it is possible that it may open over the boundary. This could be addressed by changing the window type to a double hung type, where the lower pane is fixed and the upper pane can be opened. 

6. Fenestration: All windows are shown as casement (side hinged). As these will be restricted to 125mm opening dimension, it is unlikely that the ADG minimum opening size of 5% of floor area served will be achieved. An alternate sash type is preferred. Additionally, all windows to living areas are shown as full height doors. This does not allow the door to be opened at night time and simultaneously achieve security. Both of these issues could be addressed through condition in any approval. Let me know if required. 

7. Fire Hydrant Booster: As per my previous advice, the BCA Report submitted with the DA indicates that a fire hydrant booster valve will be required. The current proposal has limited capacity to incorporate this and the visual impact is likely to be negative. The proposed location should be included on the drawings so that the visual impact can be understood. 

 Let me know if you would like me to address any additional urban design issues. As discussed, I will leave overshadowing to you.  Thanks  Allison  Allison Cronin Urban Designer Planning Assessments

____

Telephone: +612 9265 9137 cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au