The Panel refused consent for
Development Application Number D/2026/650.
Reasons for Decision
The application was refused for the
following reasons:
(A)
The
application fails to sufficiently justify that compliance with the Dwelling
Retention development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the
circumstances, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to
justify the departure from the standard, with consideration of Clause 4.6(3) of
the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012.
(B)
The
application fails to sufficiently justify that compliance with the Floor Space
Ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances,
and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the
departure from the standard, with consideration of Clause 4.6(3) of the Sydney
Local Environmental Plan 2012.
(C)
The
application fails to sufficiently justify that compliance with the Height of Building
development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and
that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the
departure from the standard, with consideration of Clause 4.6(3) of the Sydney
Local Environmental Plan 2012, as the application was not accompanied by a
document pursuant to s35B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulations 2021.
(D)
The
proposal is contrary to and fails to adequately satisfy the matters for consideration
set out in Section 47(2) of Part 3: Retention of existing affordable rental
housing of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing
SEPP) and the Guidelines for Retention of Existing Affordable Rental Housing.
(E)
The
development fails to exhibit design excellence pursuant to clause 6.21C of the
Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the following reasons:
(i)
The
development fails to provide a high standard of architectural design, materials
and detailing appropriate to the building type and location, contrary to Clause
6.21C(2)(a) and fails to provide a building with a suitable bulk, massing and
modulation, contrary to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(v).
(ii)
The
application fails to appropriately address heritage issues and streetscape
constraints, pursuant to Clause 6.21C(2)(d)(iii).
(iii)
The
development fails to demonstrate acceptable environmental impacts, including
sustainable design, solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, contrary to Clause
6.21C(2)(d)(vii).
(F)
The
proposal results in unacceptable impacts to the heritage significance of the
heritage item and the heritage conservation area and fails to meet Clause 5.10
of SLEP 2012.
(G)
The
proposed development is inconsistent with the built form and rear addition
controls within Section 4.1 of Sydney DCP 2012 and therefore offers an
unsatisfactory level of residential amenity to adjoining neighbours.
(H)
The
proposal does not provide 16sqm deep soil private open space in a consolidated
area and is therefore non-compliant with Section 4.1.3.5 of the Sydney DCP
2012.
(I)
Inadequate
information has been submitted to properly assess the application in respect of
flooding, architectural details and BASIX requirements and therefore it fails
to satisfy the following requirements:
(i)
compliance
with the City’s Interim Flood Planning Policy and stormwater drainage and
quality requirements and is therefore contrary to Clause 5.21 of the Sydney LEP
2012, and Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of the Sydney DCP 2012.
(ii)
Insufficient
drawing details are provided in relation to materials, colours and finishes.
(iii)
The
drawings fail to show the required BASIX details relating to air conditioning
and water in accordance with SEPP Sustainable Buildings 2022.
(iv)
The
survey plan submitted does not relate to the current application, applicant, or
consultant.
(J)
For the
reasons listed above, the development is unsatisfactory when assessed pursuant
to the matters for consideration at section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act and
is therefore not in the public interest.
Carried unanimously.
D/2026/650