Pititsa Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney

The Planning Framework

1. The key planning documents in this appeal are the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Sydney LEP) and Sydney DCP.
2. The Site is zoned B2 - Local Centre Zone. A residential flat building is permitted in the zone with consent. The objectives of the zone are:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.
• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.
• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.
• To allow appropriate residential uses so as to support the vitality of local centres.

1. Clause 5.10 of the Sydney LEP is concerned with conservation of the environmental heritage of the City of Sydney. In particular, cl 5.10(4) mandates the consent authority, prior to granting consent in respect of a heritage conservation item or area, to consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned.
2. The LEP mandates the maximum number of car parks which can be included in a development. The number of car parking spaces is not to exceed the maximum number set out in the Division (cl 7.3 Sydney LEP).
3. Clause 6.21 of the Sydney LEP requires development to demonstrate design excellence. In this case, the matters which are in dispute relate to the extent to which the development addresses heritage issues and streetscape constraints; the bulk, massing and modulation of the building; and the interfaces at ground level between the building and the public domain: Sydney LEP cl 6.21 (4)(d)(iii), (v) and (xii).
4. The recommended management of the Redfern Estate Heritage Conservation Area calls for a new development to respect the scale and form of significant developments and respect the building line of significant developments. It also recommends (at point 4) that FSR and height controls are to reflect the desired future character of the area, setting maximum FSR and height limits: Ex 3, Tab 25.
5. The Site is located in the Prince Alfred Park South locality under the Sydney DCP (DCP 2.13.18). The Principles pertinent to that locality include that: (b) Development is to respond to and complement heritage items and contributory buildings within heritage conservation areas, including streetscapes and lanes; (h) Generally limit building heights to two or three storeys; (i) Permit higher buildings on major streets at the edges of the neighbourhood.
6. Section 3.2.2 of the DCP is concerned with the manner in which development addresses the street and public domain. Provision 1 states that buildings are to be designed to positively address the street.
7. Heritage conservation areas are dealt with at DCP section 3.9.6, and require the development to be compatible with the surrounding built from and urban pattern, responding sympathetically to factors including (1)(d): the type, siting, bulk, roofscape, scale, materials and details of adjoining or nearby contributory buildings, and (e) the interface between the public domain and building alignments and property boundaries.
8. Section 3.9.7 calls for contributory buildings to be retained unless the consent authority determines that the replacement is justified in exceptional circumstances.
9. As far as garages are concerned, infill development is not to include garages and car access to the front elevation of the development where those are not characteristic of the area: 3.9.6(3).
10. The objective for Amenity under the Sydney DCP is to ensure that residential amenity is enhanced with landscaping, private and communal open space, sun access, ventilation and acoustic privacy: section 4.2.3. The desired amount of private open space and balconies is covered by section 4.2.3.7, while the provision regarding common open space - at least 25% of the total site area - appears at 4.2.3.8.
11. While it provides a storey control of six storeys on the Site and the sites fronting Regent Street, moving away from Regent Street (and along Wells Street) the Sydney DCP provides for a reduction in the number of storeys to four, and then to three and two throughout the heritage conservation area.
12. It is significant for this appeal that under the Sydney LEP, the maximum permissible FSR is 2.5:1. The FSR of the proposed development (following changes to the original proposal) is 2.4:1. The Site is subject to a height control of 18 metres, and the proposed development sits at 17.4 metres. The DCP has a height limit of six storeys (the development proposes five). Accordingly, it is uncontested that the proposal complies with the relevant numerical controls.

History of the Site and the Application

1. Efforts have been made to develop the Site over a period of years. In 1999, consent was granted for the erection of a three storey mixed use commercial and residential building, which was never commenced, and has now lapsed. In 2011, an application was lodged for the construction of a three storey commercial building. That application was refused due to insufficient information being provided in support.
2. This application was lodged with the Council in September 2015. The Council refused the application on 16 August 2016 for the following reasons: 1. Design excellence: the proposed development pays insufficient regard to the surrounding streetscape and results in a height out of character with the locality. It also results in an inappropriate interface, including a street facing garage at the ground level between the building and the public domain. The proposal fails to exhibit design excellence as required under cl 6.21 of the Sydney LEP. 2. Heritage: the form of the proposed development proposal will detract from the significance of the Redfern Estate Conservation Area and is inconsistent with the objectives identified in Cl 5.10 of the Sydney LEP. 3. Amenity: the proposal provides insufficient communal open space and deep soil planting. These deficiencies will detract from the amenity of the dwellings and are contrary to section 4.2.3 - Amenity of the Sydney DCP.
3. After the appeal was commenced, amended plans were prepared and leave was granted by the Court for them to be relied upon. The amended application was notified and generated one objection which raised concerns about impacts of privacy of the development on the five-storey property located across the road from the Site in Wells Street. A conciliation conference held in May 2017 was unable to resolve the matter, which subsequently proceeded to a hearing. Plans were further amended following the conciliation conference, including the introduction of a low height fence along the Wells Street boundary with the proposed car space now set back 1050 mm from the Site boundary. The front setback to the third and fourth floors has been increased to be 540mm. These proposals together resulted in a smaller FSR, being 2.4:1.
4. In addition to the grounds for refusal set out at [22] above, in its Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions [Ex 1] the Council relies upon the following contentions: 1. The proposed development has a poor relationship with the street (as a result of the car parking space). 2. The Site is not suitable for the proposed development - in addition to amenity matters raised in other contentions, the development will unreasonably limit the future development of the neighbouring properties. 3. The proposed parking arrangement will reduce pedestrian and cycling safety.

Site Inspection

1. On 10 October 2017, I had the benefit of inspecting the Site together with the Parties, their legal representatives and experts. In the course of that inspection, the parties observed the Site's relationship to neighbouring properties. We walked down Renwick Street, into James Street and along George Street before returning to Wells Street. Various garages located on street frontages were pointed out. The objector who had raised an objection against the proposal also spoke to his concerns.

Evidence

1. Expert evidence has been provided for the Applicant by Mr Anthony Betros (Town Planning) and Mr John Oultram (Heritage), and for the Council, Mr Patrick Quinn (Town Planning), Mr Hui Wang (Heritage) and Ms Cindy Ch'ng (Urban Designer), who together prepared a Joint Expert Report: Ex 2. Each of these experts also gave evidence at the hearing. In the course of the hearing, the Applicant also relied upon the On-site Parking Layout Assessment forming part of the Class 1 Application: Ex A.
2. The heritage experts agree that the Site has the potential for an infill building, and that it should consider both the existing built context and the planning controls: Ex 2 at [48]. The experts also agree that given their heritage status the two terrace houses at 77 and 79 Wells Street are unlikely to be developed, save for at the rear of those properties.
3. The Joint Expert Report and oral evidence dealt with the following issues: the car parking proposed at the ground level; the appropriateness of the building within the streetscape; the amenity of the apartments and the suitability of the Site for the proposed development. These matters are considered further below.

Car Parking located at ground level

1. This issue was reflected in Council's contentions 2, 3 and 6, which are (briefly):

• cl 3.9.6 of the DCP states that infill development within conservation areas is not to include garages or car access to the front elevation of the development where these are not characteristic of the area;
• The proposed development has a poor relationship with the street, with most of the façade occupied by screening to the space. Blank facades are not an appropriate interface between the proposed development and the public domain, resulting in an outcome which is not design excellence;
• The proposed parking arrangement will reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety, due to the vehicle's need to reverse and limited sightlines. It is inconsistent with the objectives of section 3.11 of the DCP - Transport and Parking, and other provisions of this section.

1. The experts agreed that further information was required with respect to the garage doors. This information gap has now been satisfied through the provision of Ex D. An image showing the gates and garage doors closed is reproduced below.

The Council's Position

1. The Council's experts say that two examples of garages in the streetscape provided by the Applicant out of 200 properties in the conservation area do not amount to characteristic development. A high proportion of the Site's street frontage is blank and the line of the garage is forward of the residential pedestrian entry. A consideration of "design excellence" includes whether a development achieves appropriate interfaces at ground level between the building and the public domain. A commercial or residential use at ground level would be preferred, and the proposal is inconsistent with the general character of residential buildings on the street in a conservation area. The garage does not meet the appropriate interface at ground level between the building and the public domain.
2. Council's urban design expert pointed to the differing conditions on the two sides of Wells Street: the north has large lot redevelopments and large buildings, which are neutral and detracting from the conservation area, while the south side (where the Site is located) is characterised by a fine grained subdivision pattern of mainly one to two storeys. All buildings on this side are contributory buildings. Moreover, the predominant street edge condition for the southern side of Wells Street is that of buildings with a front door and windows addressing the public domain.

The Applicant's Position

1. The Applicant's experts support the provision of a parking space due to the existing condition of the Site (the proposal represents a significant improvement on this); the narrow street; and the presence of other examples of car access from the front elevation in the same conservation area. In addition, the proposed treatment of the garage door will ensure the appearance of the garage at ground level is not prominent or offensive. A residential use at this level would be undesirable for amenity reasons.
2. As part of its evidence, the Applicant provided a "Garage Study" (Ex C). That document comprised a map with markers identifying the location of accompanying photographs of 26 garages in the locality, which garages were located on a street frontage. The area the subject of the study was approximately bounded by Redfern, Regent, Cleveland and William Streets.
3. The Applicant also relied upon a previous development application involving a garage on the street: Ex F. That decision was relied upon by the Applicant as evidence of where the Council has found, in this same heritage conservation area, that garages or openings are "characteristic". The streetscape where this finding was made, says the Applicant, is far more intact and consistent than the streetscape in Wells Street.
4. The Council concedes that there are garages within the conservation area, but relies upon the definition of "characteristic" from The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition), meaning "relating to, constituting or indicating the character or peculiar quality, typical, distinctive". The garages identified by the Applicant are not on Wells Street, which the Council says is the relevant character. While many garages may be oriented to Renwick Street, this is not typical of Wells Street. In this appeal, the garage takes up the whole of the façade. It is not correct to say that garages are typical of this are generally, or that a garage of this type which takes up the bulk of the façade is typical.
5. The Council has argued that the objective of the zone is to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. The Council says it would be entirely appropriate for there to be a development on the site which does not have a garage.
6. In response, the Applicant has said that the Sydney LEP contemplates the presence of garages, and cl 7.5 of the LEP talks about a maximum number of car parking spaces. The Applicant also submitted that the development complies with the control which promotes the maximisation of public transport. Of the three units to be contained within the development, only one is proposed to have a car space.

Finding

1. It was clear from the Site inspection that there are many examples of garages located within the front elevation of properties within the locality, including along Renwick Street and George Street. The images in Ex C show a variety of garages with frontages to the street, ranging from simple roller door garages built into fences to more ornate, high-end designed artistic doors. I accept that these garages are not identical to the current proposal, but there is no doubt as to their prevalence.
2. I prefer Mr Boutros' expert opinion (for the Applicant), based on the additional study he has undertaken and as evidenced through Ex C, that there are sufficient garages within the area to make their presence known and inform the character. Based on the number of garage doors demonstrated in Mr Boutros' study, many of which I viewed on the Site visit, I am satisfied that they can be said to be characteristic of the conservation area. I am fortified in my finding by the fact that the Council has, on a previous occasion, found that garages are characteristic of the area, notwithstanding that that case involved an application for alterations and additions, and the garage did not take up most of the frontage of the development.
3. In addition, I find that the proposed treatment of the garage, with glazed bi-fold doors behind palisade gates as illustrated in Ex D, results in an acceptable aesthetic outcome which is not out of context with the immediate area. I find that it is not prominent or offensive, and due to its treatment, is not comprised of a blank wall (which complaint from the Council referred to an earlier iteration of the design). From a streetscape perspective I concur with the Applicant that it represents a vast improvement on what is presently there. The proposal is a superior outcome, designed to respond to the context, including addressing Wells Street.
4. Mr Boutros expressed the view, which I prefer, that the palisade fence combined with the recessed nature of the bifold doors complement the rhythm of the terraces to the east.
5. True it is that the proposed design does not reflect a traditional terrace house, where the ground floor would comprise a verandah, low fence, door entry and window at the front. However, most of these elements are in fact present in the proposed design. In my view it is an acceptable response to the surrounding streetscape.
6. While the presence of a garage instead of a commercial or residential use will not provide safety through additional "eyes on the street", this is not of such moment as to result in refusal of the garage on the ground floor level. In any event, the development addresses the public domain, with the units above the ground floor level addressing the street directly and overlooking the street.
7. I also find that to the extent that it is relevant, the objective of the zone is met with respect to encouraging public transport patronage and encouraging walking and cycling, given that only one of three units will have a parking space. There was no evidence adduced which supported the contention that pedestrian and cyclist safety would be compromised. In addition, this proposal does not offend the amount of car parking specified in the LEP maximum car parking control.
8. For the reasons I have set out above, those contentions of the Council listed at [29] above are not made out.

Building Form is Inappropriate to the Streetscape, Local Character and Conservation Area

1. The relevant contentions (1 and 2) can be summarised thus:

• The height of the development is not appropriate to the condition for the Site and the surrounding context, with the development providing an inappropriate transition in height from the neighbouring two storey residential terraces; the height and form result in inappropriate impacts to the streetscape and heritage area; and the proposed form detracts from the streetscape and is not considered to be design excellence.
• The scale and form will detract from the character and surrounding buildings of the Redfern Estate Conservation Area, and is inconsistent with heritage objectives of the LEP and DCP; the proposal will have an adverse impact on the setting and context of the adjacent heritage items. It will also adversely alter the historic relationship between the corner commercial building at 101 Regent Street and the eastern terrace houses facing Wells Street. The Site was part of the former shop and it provides a transition between different uses and different building typologies.

1. The experts agree that a two storey street wall and parapet is an appropriate response to the context and that the proposal is consistent with the height and FSR controls: Ex 1 at [45] and [46].
2. The experts disagree as to the appropriate upper level setback above the street wall height, with the Council's experts disagreeing with the proposed height and building form in relation with the streetscape, local character and conservation area: Ex 2 at [50]. The appropriate height of the development is a primary point of contest between the experts.

The Council's Position

1. The Council's heritage expert, Mr Wang, says that the proposed five storey height is out of context and the upper level setbacks (of 540 mm) are insufficient. A five level building does not complement the scale and height of existing contributory buildings in the vicinity.
2. Mr Wang also considers that the sloped wall and the pop-up windows at the fifth storey add visual impact to the new building and are not appropriate [Ex 2 at [53]]. A setback of 3m (for two storeys above the parapet) to 4.5m (for three storeys above the parapet) would be more appropriate for the Site, noting that section 4.2.2.2 of the DCP establishes a minimum 3m upper level setback for residential development above residential development. Ex 2 at [60].
3. The total height of five storeys plus rooftop terrace significantly exceeds the scale and height of existing contributory buildings in the vicinity, making the new building notable from Wells Street and Renwick Street. The total height should be no more than four storeys, consistent with the maximum height on the eastern neighbouring sites. This height would considerably reduce the building's visual prominence and be able to provide a height transition from the low scale buildings on Wells and Renwick Streets to the buildings facing Regent Street: Ex 2 at [70].
4. Mr Wang's position is that the Site faces Wells Street, and its land size and pattern is similar to its eastern neighbours. and therefore it should have more regard to the neighbouring terraces and streetscape of Wells Street.
5. According to Mr Wang, an 18m height limit could not be met in this context, due in part to the existence of (considerably lower) neighbouring properties at 77 and 79 Wells Street, which are unlikely to be developed.
6. The Council's urban design expert opines that the proposed building is too high, with the height too close to the street and is thus a detracting building in the context of lower built form along the southern side of Wells Street. If there is a five storey development, the upper level setback is required to reduce the visual impact of the additional height.

The Applicant's Position

1. The Applicant's heritage expert relies upon the historic relationship between the Site and the building fronting Regent Street. Moreover, the nearest built heritage items are at some distance to the Site and will not be impacted by it. The heritage item in Wells Street (below the ground) will not be impacted by the proposal.
2. The Applicant's planner also relies upon the desired future character established by the suite of LEP and DCP controls, pointing to the proposal's compliance with numeric controls. Detailed controls were prepared in 2012, and the Site is not inconsistent with or affected by any of the maps setting these controls out. The base of the building is compatible with both adjoining buildings either side to the east and the west, achieved through the base building form along with the recessed upper levels. The combination of appropriate vertical and horizontal bay widths associated with the façade treatment ensure that the new building will sit comfortably in the existing and future streetscape: Ex 2 at [61] and [62].
3. The character of the area is very mixed, with single and two storey dwellings and four to five storey apartment buildings in Wells Street including a five storey development opposite the Site. This large building is the dominant element in the local context. The LEP Height of Buildings Map shows a 15 m height limit to the properties to the east along Wells Street, presumably intended to provide a transitional zone to the area to the east. In contrast with the Council's position, Mr Oultram says that the Site is clearly part of the building at 101 Regent Street that is currently over 12m high to its main parapet: Ex 2 at [80].
4. The proposed development has a two storey form to the street at the lower levels to provide a transition to the two storey houses to the east with balconies to the front in the manner of traditional verandas. According to the Applicant's heritage expert, greater setbacks than shown would produce little in terms of reducing the impact of the building in heritage terms, leading to a complication in the design and an unjustified reduction in the floor plate.
5. Restraint has been shown insofar as the proposed development is lower than the maximum height control and is 15.3 m from its ground to the height of the front ridge, and is in line with the 15 m height limit of the sites to the east.
6. The expert pointed to numerous examples of buildings in the City of Sydney with nil setbacks to the street at all levels which he opines have produced high quality insertions into conservation areas.

Findings

1. My starting point is that, consistent with the position held by the parties' experts, this Site is appropriate for infill development. The disagreement lies with the building form, and the suitability of the Site to accommodate that which is proposed.
2. There is no doubt that the Site has the benefit of generous planning controls, located as it is in proximity to Regent Street. According to Council's expert, the Site is the only site within the block surrounded by Regent, Redfern, Renwick and Wells Streets that has an 18m height control but does not have a Regent Street frontage: Ex 2 at [67].
3. The experts are agreed that the Site has historically been linked to 101 Regent Street, which is reflected in the height controls. The Site's 18m height limit effectively incorporates it with the buildings that face Regent Street.
4. While each of the parties has made various arguments and submissions with respect to the streetscape, I prefer the evidence of Mr Wang in this respect, and find that the development is required to give more consideration to its relationship with the eastern neighbouring buildings and the streetscape of Wells Street, rather than Regent Street, particularly 101 Regent Street. This is because the effect of the application is to change the historical relationship between the Site and 101 Regent Street, to a relationship with Wells Street. The relevant context is therefore Wells Street. Wells Street is fundamentally different in character from Regent Street. Through the design solutions employed by the Applicant, the development on the Site also seeks to take its cues from neighbouring properties in Wells Street.
5. While the development will not have an impact on the listed built heritage items located in Wells Street, the total height of 5 storeys plus rooftop terrace significantly exceeds the scale and height of existing contributory buildings in the vicinity, particularly the adjacent terrace houses. Notwithstanding that a six storey limit exists, the proposal in its context, at five storeys, dominates over the roofscape elements of the rooves and dormer windows of the adjacent terrace houses [see Ex 2, Fig CC01, p.12].
6. While the character of the area is mixed, and there are both single and two storey dwellings as well as a five storey development opposite the Site, I find that a five storey development would be out of scale with the neighbouring properties to the Site's east.
7. As far as setbacks are concerned, I accept Mr Oultram's evidence that greater setbacks than what is proposed - 540 mm on the third floor - would produce little in terms of reducing the impact of the building in heritage terms, leading to a complication in the design and a reduction in floor plate which is not justified in this small site: Ex 2 at [84]. While the Council has argued for a greater setback than that proposed by the Applicant, the bulk and scale of the development will be reduced through a lower height building. To require a greater setback would result in an unreasonable constraint on the Site's development, having regard to its inherent limitations.
8. For the reasons sated above I therefore decline to grant approval for a five storey development on the Site. However, it is my finding that the Site can accommodate a four storey development.

Apartments have Poor Amenity

1. The Council's contention is:

• The proposed communal open space does not meet the requirement of cl 4.2.3.8 of the Sydney DCP. The ground floor areas do not have a minimum dimension of 6m. The communal open space is also poorly located with little or no solar access, no outlook and limited air flow
• Two of the three apartments propose only 8sqm of private open space which does not comply with cl 4.2.3.7(6) of the DCP, which requires 10sqm of private open space for each apartment. Minimum dimensions are not met.
• A lack of communal open space plus insufficient private open space will detract from the amenity of the development.

The Council's Position

1. Under the Sydney DCP, cl 4.2.3 (Amenity) sets out the objective of the control to "ensure that residential amenity is enhanced with landscaping, private and common open space, sun access, ventilation and acoustic privacy". The control for Private Open Space and Balconies (at 4.2.3.7) is not met.
2. The Council stated there was little offset provided for the lack of open space in the context of small apartments relying upon borrowed amenity. The Site is a significant distance from Prince Alfred Park which cannot be relied upon to provide an alternative to the open space lacking in the development.
3. Ms Ch'ng believes the Applicant is cherry picking from the suite of controls and guidelines relating to multi-unit development. It is not appropriate to rely on some but not all of the design guidance within the ADG. The relevant design guidance states that where developments are unable to achieve the design criteria, they should provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof terrace or a common room, provide larger balconies or increased open space for apartments or demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities. While common open space could have been provided on the building's roof, private open space is proposed.
4. The Council says that in order for design excellence to be achieved, consideration must be given to whether or not there is a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location.
5. The Council submitted that taken together, the lack of communal space, the lack of private open space and the small and cramped nature of the apartments, the distance from parks, as well as inclusion of a garage when pedestrian access is prioritised, suggest that the development should not be approved.

The Applicant's Position

1. Mr Boutros does not agree that 25% of the Site needs to have communal open space given the proposal only involves 3 apartments and the Site is in close proximity to a variety of recreational options. To some extent, Mr Boutros relies upon the principles associated with the ADG with respect to small developments and open space. The units have private open space consistent with the ADG, with direct access from living areas, as well as being north-facing and receiving solar access. Taken together, the proposal provides a suitable level of amenity.
2. There is no contention with respect to small and cramped nature of the units: the contention is limited to common open space, which is now resolved, and private open space, which is one sqm short, but on merit, functions appropriately, submits the Applicant.
3. The Council conceded that the amount of common space is satisfied, through the design change from a gymnasium (not able to be counted as common space) to a communal room on the ground floor.

Findings

1. I accept the submission from the Applicant that due to the nature of the Site, it is difficult to achieve solar access to all areas of private open space. However, the Site is near several parks (albeit not adjacent to them).
2. The requirement for 75% of the units to have balconies is met, with each of the one-bedroom apartments enjoying a good-sized, functional, north-facing balcony. The common open space requirements are achieved through the transformation of the gymnasium into common open space.
3. While the amenity provided by the apartments may not be ideal, this factor is not of itself such as to lead me to refuse the development. Adopting similar reasoning to that employed by Brown C in Lin v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 1029 at [64], the absence of or shortfall in communal open space and private open space is not a matter that would warrant the refusal of the application because of the small number of units and the relatively small site area. There are no matters arising from the Council's contentions with respect to amenity that would lead me to refuse the application.

The Site is not Suitable for the Proposed Development

The Council's Position

1. The contention is that the limited dimensions of the Site impact on the level of amenity provided to the apartments, pushing bedroom balconies and windows close to the side boundaries and borrowing amenity from neighbouring properties. This will potentially unreasonably limit the future development of the neighbouring properties. The proposal is inconsistent with the design excellence provisions in Sydney LEP.
2. While conceding that the neighbouring contributory buildings may have limited redevelopment options, Mr Wang believes that both the existing conditions and the redevelopment potential of the neighbouring sites should be duly considered in designing the infill. This proposal does not respect the existing scale and form of the neighbouring contributory buildings. Redevelopment of number 79 Wells Street is likely to be at the rear, with future additions possibly to be built to the side boundaries, which may affect some windows and balconies of the proposed apartments.
3. For Mr Quinn's part, any development of 79 Wells Street would significantly reduce the outlook from the Site's proposed balconies and level of internal amenity. There should also be a greater setback provided to achieve acceptable levels of visual and acoustic privacy.
4. The Council further argues that the development has not improved the quality and amenity of the public domain, due to the inclusion of the garage (contributing to height and bulk); the lack of legible upper level setbacks, making the proposal "stick out" amongst the row of contributory buildings along the southern side of Wells Street and the lack of opportunity for planting in the front setback. The amenity of the one bedroom apartments is minimal, requiring enhancement through common open space, with the result that the proposal does not deliver the highest standard of architectural, urban and landscape design.

The Applicant's Position

1. The Applicant's position is that the orderly and economic use of the Site will occur, as the development replaces an unsightly and detracting use with a high quality, attractive residential flat building. Further, there is no evidence that the development will impact on the development potential of other sites in the vicinity and any such development will be judged on its merits.

Findings

1. The main issue in this aspect of the appeal lies with potential privacy impacts which may arise from future development of the adjoining terraces. I am satisfied that the proposed solution, achieved through the use of privacy screens, deals with this concern. There is nothing in the Council's contention which would prevent granting of consent for the proposed development.

Further Discussion

1. Mr Staunton, counsel for the Applicant, strenuously argued that the controls are the lens through which the development is to be assessed, and they determine the acceptability of those impacts. He drew on the specific and careful consideration given by the Council to which heights are to apply to which properties. He also submitted that what was sought by the Applicant was not the maximum, but somewhat below the development potential of the Site. Moreover, notwithstanding the recommended management of the Redfern Estate Conservation Area [set out above at 12], after the preparation of that recommendation the Sydney LEP went on to impose controls which effectively uplifted the FSR and height from the controls which had previously applied under the former South Sydney DCP.
2. For its part, Ms Berglund for the Council urged the Court to conduct an assessment under the terms of s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the normal course.
3. I have carefully weighed the Applicant's submission with respect to the development's compliance with the relevant planning controls on the one hand, and the concerns raised by the Council, particularly in the context of heritage and streetscape impacts, on the other. Consistent with the finding in Botany Bay Council v Premier Customs Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 226, in reaching my decision I have applied the Sydney LEP and had regard to the provisions of the Sydney DCP.
4. The Site's zoning is a matter of fact. According to that zoning and related development standards, the Site has the potential to be the location of a substantial development. However, notwithstanding the numerical planning controls which apply to it, other matters must be taken into account in deciding whether the proposal should be given approval, specifically those matters set out at s 79C.
5. While the historical relationship of the Site with 101 Regent Street might explain the height control, that does not mean that a future development will be able to achieve the 18 m height. Indeed, Mr Betros conceded that sometimes because of the conditions pertaining to a particular site, the maximum height in an LEP is not able to be achieved.
6. I am not satisfied that a development of five storeys is appropriate on the Site. This is in spite of the fact that the controls allow for a six storey development. I find that a development of that height would be out of character and represent an overdevelopment of the Site. The Site represents a transition from 101 Regent Street to the side of Wells Street containing two storey heritage buildings. I accept the Council's submission that as the adjacent buildings are contributory heritage items, any adjacent development must be sympathetic. In my view the five storey proposal is unsympathetic to the Wells Street streetscape.
7. I find that a five storey development, with its bulk and massing, is simply too much development for this Site in this area. The height and bulk give it a visual prominence which is not consistent with the heritage conservation area, nor is it consistent with the adjacent terrace buildings. A five storey development does not provide sufficient transition, notwithstanding the generous height controls applicable to the Site.
8. The building envelope allowed for by the controls is an aspiration, not an entitlement. There is no guarantee that a building will be permitted to fill the four corners of a building envelope. This application is a good example of why that is the case: notwithstanding what numerical controls may provide, the proposal must be assessed on its merits.
9. With respect to design excellence, I am satisfied that the proposed design, subject to the required amendments, meets the requirements of the Sydney LEP. In particular, I draw comfort from the proposed condition of consent (number 5) that a materials sample board detailing all proposed finishes must be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.
10. As far as the single objection is concerned - that the proposal will result in a loss of privacy for dwellings on the opposite side of the road - I accept the Council's assessment that the separation between the Site and the opposite property is adequate, and there are no unacceptable impacts.

Further Directions

1. In the course of the hearing, I invited the parties to express their views with respect to a development of four storeys in height, as opposed to one of five storeys, if I were to find that a five storey development would not be appropriate for the Site.
2. When expressly asked its view as to how it would prefer a four storey building to be configured, the Applicant's response was that it adhered to its primary submission, that as a fully compliant development, approval ought to be given to the development for which application has been made. If the five storeys were found to be unacceptable, then the two storey dwelling would become a single storey dwelling, and the car park on the ground floor would be retained. In other words, the building would still contain three units, but of a configuration which would fit within four levels in total, maintaining a garage on the ground floor.
3. In contrast, if approval were to be granted for a four storey building, the Council would prefer to see the garage removed, with four levels of residential building. The Council's position was that even if the garage were to be retained, a four storey outcome would be a much better outcome than the full five storey development the subject of the application.
4. For the reasons I have set out above I am satisfied that a garage at street level is an acceptable outcome for this development. Accordingly, I adopt the configuration preferred by the Applicant at [99] for a four storey development, and have decided to approve the granting of development consent on that basis.
5. The parties are to file settled, revised plans and conditions of consent reflecting the outcome of this determination. These plans are to be based upon the plans comprising Ex B, subject to the changes specified at [101]. The conditions of consent are to include the Applicant's solution contained within Ex D, comprising a fence of 1.2m, and garage doors comprising glazed bi-fold doors. The conditions are also to maintain the condition (number 19) that the proposed gymnasium is to be used as a "communal room".
6. The matter will be set down for mention on 24 January 2018. If, by that time, the parties have filed settled, revised plans and conditions of consent reflecting the outcome of my determination, I will make Orders in chambers and vacate the mention.

Directions

1. I therefore give the following directions: 1. The parties are ordered to file settled, revised plans and conditions of consent reflecting the outcome of my determination by 23 January 2018. 2. The matter is set down for mention before me at 10 am on 24 January 2018. 3. If Direction (1) is complied with, I will make orders in chambers to grant development consent and vacate the mention in Direction (2).

Addendum made on 25 January 2018

1. In accordance with the terms of directions in paragraph [104] of my judgment of 11 January 2018, the parties provided me with revised plans and agreed conditions of consent. I am satisfied firstly that consent to the application should be granted, as the appeal is an appeal under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that the conditions of consent accord with my findings. Accordingly I make orders in chambers as follows: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) Development Application D/2015/1367 is determined by grant of consent in accordance with my decision of 11 January 2018, subject to the conditions and plans attached as Annexure A. (3) The Exhibits, save for Ex 1, are returned. ………………………………… Senior Commissioner Martin Annexure A (364 KB, pdf) Annexure B (2.76 MB, pdf)

Amendments 29 January 2018 - Addendum made on 25 Jan 2018. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 January 2018