Planning
22Mr Kennan considers that the 2(a) zone is equivalent to the R2 zone and, because it is not within 400 m walking distance of land zoned equivalent to B2 Local Centre or B4 Mixed Use, the proposal would be prohibited under the amending SEPP by the provisions of clause 27(3). He also relies on the council's draft local environmental plan that proposes to include the site in the R2 zone. Ms Singleton disagrees and compares the objectives and permissible uses of the 2(a) zone to that of the R1 zone and concludes the site is equivalent to the R1zone and therefore both the original and amending SEPPs would allow the development (clauses 26 and 27(1).
23The experts agree that the floor space ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is 0.94:1 and that the SEPP provides for a maximum FSR of 1:1 so it is compliant with that control.
24They also agree that, for the purposes of considering whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area as required under clause 30A of the amending SEPP, a mandatory consideration, that local area is the area bound by Tweed, Short, Byron and Minyon Streets and that it consists largely of single houses with some medium density and commercial development.
25Ms Singleton says that because the existing building forms part of the character of the area, that character will not change. She says the building would be modified so that it is more residential in character than the existing building, the proposed openings in the northern and southern facades and the proposed building finishes will assist in improving the relationship with adjoining and surrounding development and this will result in a building that is compatible with the local area and consistent with the range of housing forms permitted within the 2(a) zone. She says the test is the design of the building and because it is not a vacant site, the development offers an improvement, and whilst it is not a building that responds to the streetscape, it introduces landscaping and windows that break up the bulk. Because it is different, does not mean it is out of context and Ms Singleton says that the fact that the building has been there for 40 years means it is in context.
26Mr Kennan disagrees and says the character of the area is predominantly that which is associated with low density residential development with some medium density housing and the existing built form, being a two storey commercial development with little architectural merit, is not the built form anticipated by the council in the local area, is not low density residential in character nor does it portray a character commensurate with a residential flat building and is not consistent with the desired future character of the area so concludes the development is not compatible with the character of the area.
27In regard to internal amenity, Mr Kennan says that the majority of common rooms are located on the south side of the building and do not receive the sunlight required by clause 29(2)(c) of either SEPP. He does not agree that the area adjacent to the office space, as nominated by the applicant, is part of the lounge area but rather forms part of the main entry and corridor space however, accepts the advice of the architect Mr Logan, that the area does receive three hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm. In relation to the upper floor lounge, he says that the area that receives direct sunlight is only 9 sqm of the 17 sqm total space of that lounge area and says that is not enough for the size of the establishment.
28Ms Singleton says that clause 30 of both policies does not set a minimum size for communal spaces and only requires that one area is provided, that the development provides three lounge areas, two recreation rooms and a small sitting room and those spaces are compliant however agrees none of the areas provided will receive sunlight to the whole of the space but says that is not necessary and also notes that consent may be granted, under clause 29(4) even if the standards are not met. She also says that due to the climate, it is appropriate to provide shady areas that do not receive sun and considers that they would be well utilised and contribute to social interaction and added amenity.
29The outdoor communal open space is provided to the north of the building, has an area of 70 sqm and exceeds the standard that cannot be used to refuse consent. That standard, specified in clause 29(2)(d)(i), requires at least 20 sqm with a minimum dimension of 3 m. In addition the 8 sqm private open space area required by clause 29(2)(d)(ii) is provided in a courtyard to the immediate north of the manager's room.
30Mr Keenan is concerned that the double loaded corridor formation of the proposal does not provide for adequate cross ventilation of rooms and, because of the zero setback to the rear lane, he says the design of those rooms does not promote suitable security, is contrary to recognised crime prevention through environmental design principles and has the potential for overlooking from the lane promoting adverse amenity for the residents of those boarding rooms. In addition, he says the need to provide privacy screens reduces the solar access to a number of the rooms and the proximity of the outdoor courtyard to rooms 1-4 has the potential for privacy and acoustic conflicts.
31Ms Singleton says the design provides satisfactory space for occupants and complies with the relevant provisions of the SEPP and notes that the amending SEPP limits the floor area of rooms to 25 sqm (excluding kitchen and bathrooms). She says the rooms are compliant, provide adequate light and ventilation, some include private courtyards and there is no control that requires all rooms to receive sunlight and compares this to a situation in a dwelling house where bedrooms are often located on the southern side of a dwelling and receive little or no direct sunlight.
32Mr Kennan says that the introduction of first floor balconies to the four units at the western end of the building results in unreasonable privacy impacts to the immediately adjoining property 18 Teven Street and the proximity of the outdoor communal area to that site would also have adverse amenity impacts due to noise and overlooking. Ms Singleton disagrees and says the adaptive re-use of the existing building for residential purposes would not be likely to result in additional impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of noise and that the provision of privacy screens to the north-eastern rooms addresses the potential privacy impacts to 12 Teven Street however, she did not address those issues in terms of No 18.
33With regard to the public interest, Mr Kennan says the proposal is unsatisfactory, because it is larger than what would be allowed by the council's draft strategic planning documents (these provide for a FSR of 0.4:1), utilises a built form that does not sit with the desired future character of the area and creates significant and adverse impacts to both the residents of the development and to adjoining residents to the north of the site. Ms Singleton says the development responds directly to a recognised need for housing options that will meet the changing demographic characteristics of the area and considers the potential adverse impact of the proposal is less than that resulting from the existing use so concludes the development is consistent with the public interest.