The evidence
17A joint planning report was prepared by Ms E Burke for the council and Mr R Player for the applicant. That report addressed all of the contentions in the case and concludes that the development as proposed in the Issue F plans is appropriate for the site. With regard to the building height, they agree that the proposal is acceptable because the sixth level is located towards the Parramatta Road frontage where a similar 6 storey building is located, is generally setback from the building edges, will not create any adverse amenity impacts upon surrounding residents in terms of overshadowing or overlooking and allows for the increased footpath area and street width resulting in better public amenity.
18They also agree that the minor variation to FSR when compared to that proposed under the draft LEP is acceptable and that the amended building bulk and massing of the development tis now consistent with the character of the area.
19The planners concur that the façade treatment results in a satisfactory architectural treatment of the building and, subject to imposition of conditions of consent, the operational issues raised by objectors can be satisfactorily addressed. Those conditions require the further refinement of the Plan of Management (POM) proposed, restricting the hours of use of the open, communal terrace, acoustic criteria, limitations on the number of occupants of each room, requiring a resident caretaker and 24 hour contact to caretaker/manager, waste collection, on-site loading and prohibition of participation in resident parking permit scheme. The joint report also addresses the issues raised and concludes the development is consistent with the mixed use area; is acceptable from a drainage/flooding assessment; meets the underlying objectives of the height and FSR controls; proposes generous provision of private and communal open space; is consistent with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and incorporates an appropriate level of retail space to activate the streetscape.
20A contention in relation to the heritage significance of the building has been resolved with the parties agreeing that there is no reason that demolition of the building should not be allowed provided photographic archiving is conducted in accordance with the 'Digital Capture' Guidelines set out by the Heritage Branch and submitted to council. An agreed consent condition has been provided to address this contention.