item - reports - north sydney council - home · following this assessment, and having regard to the...

Item ___IPP10________ - REPORTS -______01/06/2016_________

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

NSIPP MEETING HELD ON 01/06/2016

Attachments:

1. Site Plan

2. Architectural Plans

3. Shadow Diagrams

4. Original Conditions of Consent (DA216/14)

ADDRESS/WARD: 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli (V)

APPLICATION No: DA 216/14/3

PROPOSAL: To Modify Development Consent 216/14 for alterations and

additions to an existing eight storey apartment building

PLANS REF:

Plan No. Issue Title Drawn by Received

S.96.01A A Site Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.02A A Ground Floor Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S.96.03A A Typical Level Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.04A A Elevation – North, Section Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.05A A Elevation - East Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.06A A Elevation - South Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.07A A Elevation - West Marston Architects 18.09.15

OWNER: Strata Plan No.1036

APPLICANT: Marston Architects

AUTHOR: Natalie Moore, Assessment Officer

DATE OF REPORT: 17 May 2016

DATE LODGED: 18 September 2015

RECOMMENDATION Approval

Report of Natalie Moore, Assessment Officer

Re: 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This development application seeks approval to modify DA216/14 in respect of further upgrades

to the building façade to incorporate balconies (full width or Juliette) to each unit over Levels 1 –

8, relocation of the pumproom and hydrant booster, raising the parapet by 100mm and blocking

the existing fire stair windows and replacing them with vents. DA216/14 originally granted

approval for alterations and additions an existing eight storey apartment building including new

cladding to the façade, new windows, demolition of existing roof top chimneys, installation of

roof top air conditioning plants and fire safety upgrade works’ at 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli.

The proposed modification involves

The application is reported to the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel due to

Councillor and public interest.

Notification of the development application has attracted four (4) submissions which raise

concern regarding the absence of individual owners consent for the proposed balconies and the

financial costs associated with the project, amenity impacts from the proposed balconies

including view loss and over shadowing, the impacts of the proposed balconies on the overall

appearance of the building and encroachment upon existing car spaces, and the impacts of

asbestos removal within the building. The assessment has considered these concerns as well as

the performance of the application against Council’s planning requirements.

It is Council’s view that adequate owners consent has been provided. The proposed modification,

namely the proposed balconies which incorporate Alucobond cladding (to match the material

approved as part of the original application) and glazed balustrades, have been designed to

complement the previously approved façade upgrade and adjoining developments which are

contemporary in nature. Whilst the balconies will result in the loss of views to the Opera House

and water from the south-western corner of the living/dining areas of some units within the

building, this view loss is considered to be reasonable when assessed against the Tenacity Test.

Similarly, given the orientation of the building to the south overshadowing impacts from the

balconies is not considered to be material. Appropriate conditions of consent were recommended

in the original development application is manage the removal and disposal of asbestos.

Following this assessment, and having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application is considered to be reasonable

in the circumstances and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

LOCATION MAP

OLYMPIC PARK

HOPKINS PARK

PAUL STREET

MA

RY

WO

LL

ST

ON

EC

RA

FT

LA

NE

SO

UT

H

ST

RE

ET

MIL

SO

NS

PO

INT

STA

TIO

NBR

ADFIELD

PARK

KIRR

IBILLI

VILLAGE SQ

UARE

DR

IVE

BR

OU

GH

TO

N

BRAD

FIEL

D

PAR

K

HU

MP

HR

EY

PL

AC

ES

TR

EE

TH

UM

PH

RE

Y P

LA

CE

CRES

CENT

BURTON

STREET

PITT STREET

STANTON LOOKOUT

JE

FF

RE

YS

ST

RE

ET

BLIGH

STREET

PLA

CE

COPESLOOKOUT

FITZROY

STREET

UPPER

PITT STREET PED

ESTRIAN

LI NK

CARABELLA

CAPTAIN HENRY WATERHOUSE RESERVE

ROBERTSON

UPPER

KIRRIBILLI

LANE

ROBERTSON LA

NE

ROAD CLO

SURE

PARKES

S

TREET

ELAMANG

PITT STREET

PEEL

MCBURNEY LANE

STREET

80

70

68

52

48

-50

38

41

30

28

26

26A

20-2

4

4

12B

(10A

)

10B

10

(4A

)8

64

2

48

50

56-5

2

14A

42

29

31A

14

40

45

34

43

38

41

12

31

40

32

1

3A

57-9

11-1

71

921

23

-25

27-2

93

13

33

5-3

7

46

44

42

40

38

36

44-50

34

32

30

28

24

22

20

18

31B

1-5

33

(46)

1

47

35

57

48

37

55

88

59

(49)

50

49B

61

49A

1

(2A)

63-65

2

60

2

51-55

62

64

69

8

66

68

101

58

3

71

57

12

70-72

56

54

73

98

85-87

50

59

74-76

75

100

77

61

48

102

78

46

104

63

80

44

63A

82

42

40

65

71

28

25

1423

21

65

19

12

17

15

30

13

1011

89

67

30A

65-

7

1-3

2

8

32

69

71

69

67

10

34

84

36

38

16-18

94

(14-24)

92

90

20

31

22

88

24

149

26

14714

5

28

143

30

141

78

139

1

32

137

76

3

135

5

74

32A

133

7

72A

131

72

37A6039

15

34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

17

50 (52) (54)

19

62

111 21

113(50)

113A 23

115

2564

117

27

117A66

68

119

27A

27B

7029

121-123 22

125 24

31-39

12726

129

28

41

30

43

45

135A 3

2

47

34

(split

for V

aluatio

n pur

poses

only)

223

84

2

SP 69887

SP 75018

563

689

SP

60

33

9

SP

77

22

7

SP

79

91

7

1

100

875048

SP

49

49

6

Kiosk

11

70

079

North

Syd

ney P

ool

403084

437985

100

Pt 1

743859

XY

AS

P 8

33

50

102

854064

Pt 18

54205

880236

Pt 1

101

1

743856

1

873

68

7

849664

1B

rad

fi el d

Park

Co

mm

unit y C

en

tre

3

2D

C1

1

68325

2P

t 1

(Lease - for Valuation purposes only)

71131Pt 1

69273

70079

975537

173154

743852Pt 1

Pt 1

849664

172926

879674

100

Bay 29

(Lease

- for V

alu

at io

n p

urp

ose

s on

ly)

26

849663(in stratum)

(Lease

- for V

alu

at io

n p

urp

ose

s on

ly)

Bay 2

8

Bay 27

Bay 26

Pt 1

972310

Bay 25

743853

2

Bay 24

849664

4


853336

31

20

7520671129

1140865785020 3

849664

Pt 1

849664(in stratum)

Energy Australia Lease

Substation No.6642

2

8496645 (Lease of Council road)852461

(in stratum)1785020

211140865743854

11

2

Pt 1

Pt 1 Pt 1Pt A Pt 1Pt B 1Pt 2 Pt 2 Pt 1

785020

97

55

37

17

12

76

14

93

67

56

93

670

9

73

16

0

30

07

58

300758 4 1Pt 1 5CT 3391646056655

127614Pt 4

1

22

82

98

1566863

1 1

21

Pt 3

C

60327

15

48

15

59702 1

79

26

80

917965

A

22

82

98

91

79

09

1276141215745

20

31

2230232

1

849663(in stratum)

261 5653365

207

83

3

1

3

627

11

9

SP 39011

3

23

SP 4413421779569 779570

1

743851

779

568

1

22

4

33

74

45

SP

79

55

4

311

1A

D

SP

11

63

3

100 748442

86

89

01

908369

70567108846

1017212

18

02

16

24

1

1

53

73

45

10

779571

15

37

Sec B

1

830667

3

1

2 1055909SP 71204

1

9276

34

Sec B

4453

1

22

SP 5329663688

64

59

3

1

11

193

91

A

1103130

743861

(spli t for Valuation purposes only)

74

38

62

Sec A

1

630528

9650

413373924453

69

51

8

7984

63 211

1

1

1 Sec A

37

741

8

( in s

tr at u

m)

1

10

31

72

1

2

SP

66

04

5

184453

66

77

1

7069

14

D

33618915

1

2021

101207833

110849

6

1

9026

66

1

1

584

96

6

2

1155

008

1

567224

1537

3

14

3

Sec

B

880841

2321

45

851449

101

1

11

95

50

2

2

10

15

SP 50720

33064

102

27

16

Sec B

SP 32094

17

2

28A

21

877

2

1

29A

1078553

1537

A

44

57

11

30

7350

80

SP

13017

4453

B

4

Sec B

31

2

2

21

2

32

Sec C

6564

62

114

873

9

1537

Sec B

793871

22

331537

SP 1036

1113253

A

34

6

4

SP

1414

211

82

67

8

8153

41

B

1

100

3

456106

329

SP

16930

SP

6908

0

6

630381

SP 50441SP 53759SP 54600

4388

72

2

Sec C

2

1537

SP 8

6670

456106

2

1

SP

10161

8

1

SP

2004

3

10

10

85

8

6685

57

3221

92

3

8382

19

CT 3

9

1

12

2155

511

1343

25

102

1

1

101

SP 9

210

SP 4

1033

1

SP

355

86115

513

3023

111

111

476

SP 2619

706725

9263

30

111

SP 7

8922

5901

21

B

SP

681

60SP 7

7406

920470

2

A

2

SP 6

1861

739154

SP 8

595

1396588

SP 12521

SP 2

1835

3965

882

5

SP 2

2430

CT 3

7

SP 11318

3

1276

9349

75

A

11

401308

SP 9

300

9356

30

SP 62930

1

9271

34

C

2

SP

101

78

SP

86856

13

406127

1

SP

221

83

1

1276

9267

73

SP 2311SP 3699SP 21890

SP 62288

1

SP

1284

8

1

6564

63

9782

39

535912

14

9263

86

91

28

99

SP 7596SP 79246

4561

07

2

1

SP

2699

2

52

18

2

858699

1

SP

104

59

SP 9692

340557

A

SP 5

7048

90937

A

SP 5

7858

6

SP 3253

79235

7855

6

7

SP 1

8591

SP 5

3946

SP 8

0191

37317

1

84852

SP 2

116

3

SP 355

SP 1

5581

SP 3

3713

995939

74827

SP 2

713

996073

1

1

1

SP 51526

1

1

930718

1SP 2

707

SP 2

794

SP 7

0508

SP 7

4175

SP 8

6118

114159

A

930942

F

SP 9

616

169973

SP 4

5139

9036

98

SP 5186

1

SP 1

2061

SP 3

4663

SP 4701

1166282

200

4996

41

1

1154168

SP 3

174

9

1276

100

Sec 2

1050

614

101

1155

20(L

ea

se -

for

Val

uatio

n

purp

oses

on

ly)

SP

54

3398

12

1

A

1

1

4140

C

SP 30765

337583

(Lea

se -

for

Val

uatio

n

purp

oses

on

ly)

1

2831944

SP 14703

SP 84953

SP 1

5620

SP 1

9965

SP 8

4683

SP 16874

3049

63A

X

SP 6699

SP 8146

SP 17100

SP 61450

SP 66556

418127

20

102047

4561

04

6

7

30

29 431339

28

4313

3782

56B

SP 145

25

4313

(Lease - for Valuation

purposes only)

(Leas

e - f

or V

alua

tion

purp

ose s

onl

y)

Re:

Property/Applicant Submittors - Properties Notified

48 Upper Pitt Street Kirribilli - DA 216/14/3



DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal involves modification under Section 96(2) of the Act to Development Consent

216/14, which originally granted approval for ‘alterations and additions to an existing eight storey

apartment building including new cladding to the façade, new windows, demolition of existing

roof top chimneys, installation of roof top air conditioning plants and fire safety upgrade works’

at 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli.

The proposed modification involves

1. Installation of balconies on the western and southern facades of the building over

Levels 1 – 8

The proposed modification involves the construction of new private balconies on the western

and southern facades of the building over Levels 1 – 8. The balconies will vary in size, with

the front most balconies (closest to Upper Pitt Street) between Levels 2 – 8 (Lots 53, 59, 65,

71, 77, 83 and 89) having a dimension of 1.4m in depth and 8.2m in length. The remaining

balconies across the building will be Juliette balconies with a depth of 0.65m and length of

1.2m.

The balconies will be accessible from the main living area of each dwelling and this

modification application proposes new access doors to these balconies.

Figure 1 – Photo montage showing the proposed balconies



Figure 2 – Proposed balconies on Level 2 – 8 of most southern units (closest to Upper

Pitt Street)

Figure 3 – Proposed Juliette balconies across the remaining units

2. Relocating the pump room and hydrant booster

The proposed modification includes relocating both the pump room and the hydrant booster

assembly from the approved locations to the southern boundary of the site along Upper Pitt

Street. This relocation is required to meet the requirements of NSW Fire & Rescue. The

proposed relocation is shown in Figure 4 below.



Figure 4 – Approved and proposed locations for the hydrant booster assembly and

pump room

3. Raising the existing parapet by 100mm

The applicant has advised that following detailed design after the original approval, and

to accommodate the insulation within the roof, the approved parapet height of RL61.43

needs to be raised by 100mm to RL61.53.

4. Blocking the existing fire stair windows and adding vents

Following consultation with the unit owners regarding the proposed modifications to the

existing fire stair windows and the installation of the external fire screen, it was

determined that this design was not desirable due to the impacts to sunlight, views and

ventilation for the existing units within the building.

It is therefore proposed to completely remove the windows and fire screen and replace

them with vents.

CHECKING OF PLANS

This application has been checked to ensure that the changes being sought are the only

changes included in the submitted plans.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

North Sydney LEP 2013

Zoning – R4 (High Density Residential)



Item of Heritage – No

In Vicinity of Item of Heritage – Yes (Adjacent to ‘Wyalla’ at No. 1 – 5 Jeffreys Street

currently St. Aloysius’ College)

Conservation Area – No

FSBL – No

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

POLICY CONTROLS

North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013

DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Strata Plan 1036, known as No. 48 Upper Pitt Street,

Kirribilli. The site is located on the northern side of Upper Pitt Street, with a secondary frontage

to Robertson Lane to the north. A small Ausgrid substation is located adjacent to the south-west

boundary of the site. Beyond this is a public footpath running along the western boundary of the

site and providing access to Robertson Lane. The subject site rises sharply from Upper Pitt Street

and provides residents with views across Sydney Harbour to the Harbour Bridge and Opera

House.

Existing on the site is an 8-storey apartment building that contains 47 apartments. The building is

constructed as one structure however functions as three separate towers, each having their own

foyer, lift and stair core (southern tower, middle tower, northern tower). The remainder of the site

is primarily taken up with on-site parking including a mixture of under-croft parking and outdoor

ground level parking in the northern, eastern and southern portions of the site. Limited soft

landscaping is provided along the boundaries of the site. The three lift over runs, motor rooms

and redundant chimneys (used to service the now redundant garbage incinerators) are visible on

the roof of the building (refer to Figure 1 above). A single drainage inlet is located on each

section of the roof, and drains through asbestos pipes throughout the building. This roof is

currently 100mm thick and uninsulated.

Due to the failure of the current waterproofing on the roof, limited insulation capacity and

insufficient drainage, the building (in particular the top floor apartments) experience extreme

interior temperatures and water ingress on a regular basis. Water is also penetrating through the

external skin of the building and windows, which sit flush against the external walls.

Surrounding development is a mix of high density residential, including a 15 storey apartment

building at No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt Street, and educational establishments being St Aloysius

College at No. 1 – 5 Jeffreys Street and No. 47 Upper Pitt Street.



Figure 5 – Subject Site

Figure 6 – Subject site from Upper Pitt

Street

Figure 7 – Subject site from the eastern

end of Upper Pitt Street

RELEVANT HISTORY

Subject Site

A search of Council’s records has revealed the following relevant development history for the

subject site.

19 April 1960 Development Application 60/133 was approved by Council

for the erection of a 9 storey apartment building with 62

units and basement parking under, subject to the following

condition: the building line being the alignment of the

existing building.



30 August 1960 In response to this condition imposed under DA60/133, the

proposal had to be re-designed and Building Application

60/287 was consequently approved for the erection of an 8

storey apartment building with 47 apartments and off-street

parking facilities.

3 September 2014 Development Application 216/14 was approved by the

North Sydney Independent Planning Panel for alterations

and additions to an existing apartment building including

new cladding to the façade, new windows, demolition of

existing roof top incinerators, installation of roof top air

conditioning plant and fire safety upgrade works.

20 August 2015 A Section 96 Application (D216/14/2) to modify D216/14

to enable the construction of balconies off each unit within

the building was rejected by Council for a lack of

individual owners consent.

Subject Development Application

18 September 2015 The subject Section 96 Application (D216/14/3) proposing

modifications to the original consent D216/14 to enable the

construction of balconies off each unit within the building,

relocation of the fire brigade hydrant booster and assembly pump

room, changes to the fire stair windows and raising the parapet

height by 100mm was lodged with Council. Accompanying the

application was legal advice stating that individual owners

consent was not required.

9 October 2015 –

23 October 2015

The subject application was notified to adjoining properties and

the Bradfield Precinct for a 14 day period. Three (3) submissions

were received.

16 November 2015 In response to the submissions received the applicant was

requested to provide:

a) Confirmation that once the balconies were construction

they will form part of the common property of the Strata

Plan.

b) Evidence that there had been a meeting of the Owners

Corporation for the Executive Committee where minutes

have been formalised as to the decision to construct the

balconies and to lodge the S.96 application.

20 November 2015 The requested information was submitted to Council.

15 March 2016 The applicant was advised that the evidence provided as part of

item b) was insufficient and further evidence was required.

22 March 2016 The requested evidence was submitted to Council



27 April 2016 An additional submission was received in relation to the

development application.

REFERRALS

Building

The modification application was discussed with Council’s Team Leader of Building Compliance

in relation to the modifications to the fire safety measures approved as part of the original

development application, namely the closure of the existing fire stair windows and installation of

vents in their place.

No in-principle objection was raised to these proposed changes, subject to modification to

Condition G2 to reflect the updated Fire Safety Report prepared by Stephen Grubit & Associates

as follows:

G2 Fire Safety Upgrades

Prior to the issuance of any Occupation Certificate, appropriate certification

shall be obtained indicating that all works have been completed in accordance

with the Stephen Grubit & Associates Fire Safety Report, numbered 2013/207

R1.14, and the Recommended Fire Safety Upgrade works outlined within Part 5.0

of the Philip Chung Report, dated 16 April 2013.

(Reason: Fire safety upgrade)

Heritage

The modification application was discussed with Council’s Conservation Planner due to the

location of the site adjacent to the heritage listed item at No. 1 – 5 Jeffreys Street. No objection

was raised to the proposed works.

SUBMISSIONS

The owners of adjoining properties and the Bradfield Precinct were notified of the proposed

development for a 14 day period between 9/10/2015 – 23/10/2015. The notification resulted in

four (4) submissions which are summarised below:

Owners consent should be required from each individual lot owner.

The combination of double width and Juliet balconies will make the building unbalanced and

ugly.

Impact of the full width balconies on views from the remaining units.

Amenity impact of the full width balconies above Unit 1 (front unit on Level 1).

Owners consent should be required from each individual lot owner.

Financial costs associated with providing only a 1m2 Juliet balcony.

Amenity impact of the full width balconies above Unit 1 (front unit on Level 1)

Proposed balconies at the front of the building will encroach upon the car spaces off Upper Pitt

Street.

Impact from the removal of asbestos in the building.

Proposed design is not uniform with the current architecture and the balcony will protrude out

on one side of the land.

View loss from full width balconies.



ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 - Section 96 Modification of Consents

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables a consent

authority to modify a development consent upon application being sought by the applicant or any

person entitled to act on the consent, provided that the consent authority:

Is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially

the same development;

Has consulted the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body in respect of a

condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance

with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and

that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to

the modification of that consent;

Has notified the application in accordance with the regulations or DCP and has

considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification; and

In determining the application for modification, has taken into consideration such

matters referred to under Section 79C(1) as are relevant.

Therefore, Council’s assessment of the application to modify the subject development consent

must consider the following issues:

1. Is the proposed development as modified substantially the same development for

which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally

granted was modified (if at all)?

The proposed modification is considered substantially the same development for which

consent was originally granted. No change is proposed to the use, overall height or

internal footprint of the building. The proposed changes to include the balconies form

part of a wider façade upgrade to the building which was approved as part of the original

development application. The increase to the parapet height by 100mm from that

originally approved is required for the remedial works to the roof and the removal of the

fire stair windows as approved and inclusion of the vents in their place forms is required

to ensure fire safety. Similarly, the relocation of the pump room and hydrant booster from

the locations originally approved is in response to consultation with NSW Fire & Rescue.

In light of the above, the works proposed as part of the modification are considered to be

generally consistent with the original scope of works for a façade upgrade, remedial

works and fire upgrades. The proposal as amended is therefore substantially the same

development as originally approved by Council.

2. Whether the application required the concurrence of the relevant Minister, public

authority or approval body and any comments submitted by these bodies?

The subject modification does not require concurrence of the relevant minister, public

authority or approval body.

3. Whether any submissions were made concerning the proposed modification.



The owners of adjoining properties and the Bradfield Precinct were notified of the

proposed development for a 14 day period between 9/10/2015 – 23/10/2015. The

notification resulted in four (4) submissions which are summarised earlier in this report.

A response to these submission is provided later in this report.

4. Any relevant considerations under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act 1979.

The relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act 1979, are assessed under the following headings.

SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the likelihood of land contamination and

any remediation necessary to rehabilitate the site. Council’s records indicate that the site has

previously been used for residential development and as such is unlikely to contain any

contamination. The requirements of SEPP 55 have therefore been satisfactorily addressed.

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

SEPP No.65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat development. It is noted that,

pursuant to Clause 4, the SEPP does not strictly apply to the subject application as the

modification works are not considered to be a substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of the

existing residential flat building.

However, the proposed works are considered to satisfy the relevant principles of the SEPP in the

following ways:

The façade treatment, including the balconies, will improve the appearance of the existing

residential flat building and its contribution to the neighbourhood and harbourside

location.

There will be no material change to the overall scale of the building.

The proposed works will have no impact upon the density of development at the site.

The inclusion of the proposed balconies will improve the internal amenity of units for the

occupants by providing a greater access to natural ventilation, outlook and private open

space.

The proposed balconies will enable occupants of the building to have greater interaction

with the surrounding public domain, increasing opportunities for passive surveillance of

public areas.

The inclusion of the balconies on the existing residential flat building provides greater

articulation across the façade, responds to the existing context in particular the proximity

to the harbour and access to expansive views and outlook and better reflects

developments of a similar scale within the surrounding area (namely 50 – 58 Upper Pitt

Street). The use of the Alucobond cladding for the balconies will ensure the balconies

complement the previously approved façade upgrade works.

Overall, the proposed modification is likely to improve the presentation of the building to the

streetscape, enhance the internal amenity within each unit and provide some private open space to

these units. The application is therefore considered to be reasonable when considered against the



relevant principles of SEPP 65.

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as defined under the SREP. The

site however is not located within the Foreshore and Waterways Area, or the Opera House buffer

area.

Nevertheless, consideration has been given to the relevant provisions of the SREP as follows:

Part 1 – Preliminary

Clause 2 – Aims of Plan

The proposed modification seeks to improve and upgrade the external appearance of the building,

and amenity of individual units through the provision of the balconies. The existing building and

the changes as part of this modification are not considered to be so significant as to compromise

the aims of the SREP with regard to the protection of the foreshores and waterways.

Part 2 – Planning Principles

Clause 13 – Sydney Harbour Catchment

The proposed balconies will have no impact upon the hydrological, ecological and

geomorphological processes of the catchment.

Due to the height and siting of the existing apartment building, it sits prominently within the

Kirribilli skyline and is visible from Sydney Harbour. The proposed modification to include

balconies will add further articulation to the existing building without significantly altering its

bulk and height. The retention of the previously approved muted colour scheme will continue to

be an improvement over the existing lighter, uncharacteristic façade, and will ensure that the

building is a recessive element amongst the Kirribilli skyline as seem from the harbour.

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

An amended BASIX Certificates have been submitted to cover the proposed modifications. It is

recommended that the original condition requiring compliance with the commitments contained

in the certificate be modified to reflect the amended certificates.

NORTH SYDNEY LEP 2013

In accordance with the findings by Justice Lloyd in Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council

[2008] NSWLEC 157, the modification of a development consent pursuant to Section 96 which

results in a new or modified variation to a development standard, does not require the submission

of a request for variation to the control. In this regard, reference is made to the provisions of

S.96(3) of the Act which distinguishes between the modification of a development consent

pursuant to s.96 and the granting of development consent.

Notwithstanding, Council must still consider the proposed modifications against the relevant

development standards and provisions of the North Sydney LEP 2013, under the requirements of

S.96(3) & s.79C of the Act as follows:



1. Permissibility within the zone

The subject site is zoned Residential R4 (High Density Residential) under the provisions of the

North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013). Development for the purposes of

alterations and additions to an existing apartment building is permissible with the consent of

Council.

2. Residential Zone Objectives

The proposed modifications to the original development are considered to generally support the

objectives of the zone for the reasons stated throughout this report.

3. NSLEP 2013 Compliance Table

The application has been assessed against the relevant numeric controls in NSLEP 2013.

Principal Development Standards – North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013

Site Area – 1,878m²

Existing Proposed Control Complies

Clause 4.3 – Heights of

Building

29.01m (existing chimney

approved to be demolished

as part of DA216/14)

28.2m (proposed louvre

screen as approved under

original development

consent – DA216/14)

24.33m (new parapet)

12m NO

4. Building Height

The proposed 12.33 metre breach to the building height has been assessed against the objectives

of the building height control to measure the performance of the proposed modification. These

matters have been considered below.

(1)(a) To promote development that conforms to and reflects natural landforms, by

stepping development on sloping land to follow the natural gradient

The proposal generally respects the existing landform and does not seek a further

increase in the overall height of the subject apartment building.

(1)(b) To promote the retention and, if appropriate, sharing of existing views

An assessment of the proposed modification on the impact to views, both from

surrounding properties and within the subject building, is discussed below:

No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt Street



The subject building is located directly to the west of No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt Street. The

orientation of the primary balconies and windows affording harbour views of the units at

No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt is to the northwest and south, southwest towards the CBD,

Opera House and Harbour Bridge. As such, the primary outlook and views from the units

of No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt Street will not be altered by the proposed modification to the

subject building, in particular the addition of the balconies.

Units within the subject building (48 Upper Pitt Street)

The existing units within the building benefit from expansive harbour views

encompassing the city and North Sydney skylines, water, Harbour Bridge and Opera

House (refer to Figures 9 – 14 below).

It is noted that there would be differing impacts to views across the building and from

different levels as a result of the proposed balconies. Consideration has been given to the

possible view loss impacts from the proposed balconies (both full width and Juliette) in

accordance with the four (4) step process adopted by Commissioner Roseth of the NSW

Land and Environment Court centering around Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council

[2004] NSWLEC 140 (also known as the Tenacity Test) with an assessment provided

below.

Access was only gained to two units (Units 26 & 31) within the building for the purpose

of this view loss analysis because these were the units that raised concerns regarding view

loss during the notification of the application. The location of these units is shown in

Figure 8 below. It can be seen from Figure 8 that Unit 26 is located in the southern

(front) block of the ‘middle’ tower and any potential view loss would be from a Juliette

balcony to the unit directly in-front. Unit 31 is located in the northern (rear) block of the

‘southern’ tower and any potential view loss from this unit would be from the full width

balcony to the unit directly in-front.



Figure 8 – Site plan of the subject site showing the approximate location of views to

the Harbour Bridge from Units 26 & 31 for the purpose of view loss analysis

Figures 9 & 10 – The existing view from the southern and western windows of Unit

26/48 Upper Pitt Street from a sitting position in the living room



Figure 11 –The view of the Opera House from a standing position in the south-

western corner of the living/dining room of Unit 26/48 Upper Pitt Street

Figures 12 & 13 – The existing view from the southern and western windows of

Unit 31/48 Upper Pitt Street from a standing position in the living room

Figure 14 – The view of the Opera House from a standing position in the south-

western corner of the living/dining room of Unit 31/48 Upper Pitt Street

First Step:



“The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more

highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or

North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued

more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and

water is visible, is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

Comment:

The views/outlook currently enjoyed from the combined living/dining areas of each unit

(including Unit 26 and Unit 31), as mentioned above, include expansive harbour views

encompassing the city and North Sydney skylines, water, Harbour Bridge and Opera

House (refer to Figures 9 – 14 above). These views are iconic views of high value. The

proposal would have no impact on the Harbour Bridge, Sydney and North Sydney

skylines and the majority of water views and views to the land and water interface.

However, the proposal will impact upon views to the Sydney Opera House and water

directly below the Opera House.

Unit 26:

As indicated in Figure 15 below, the proposed height of the balcony, when viewed from

Unit 26, will match the height of the window sill of the existing western window which is

visible from this unit. The solid component of the balcony will therefore project at a

height as shown in red on Figure 15. The addition of the Juliette balcony to the unit in

front of Unit 26 will remove part of the Opera House and water view as shown in orange.

It is unlikely that the glazed balustrading proposed on the Juliette balcony will obstruct

any views because it is proposed to be inset approximately 550mm from the western

corner of the building at this location.

Figure 15 – Photograph taken from a standing position in the south-western corner

of Unit 26/48 Upper Pitt Street

Unit 31:



As indicated in Figure 16 below, the proposed full width balcony will extend 300mm

higher than the window sill of the existing western window which is visible from this unit

because of the proposed glazed balustrade. As such, the addition of this balcony and

associated balustrading to the unit in front of Unit 31 will remove part of the Opera House

and water view from Unit 31 as shown in orange (balcony) and green (balustrade).

Figure 16 – Photograph taken from a standing position in the south-western corner

of Unit 31/48 Upper Pitt Street

Second Step:

“The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.

For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the

protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is

enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more

difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting

views is often unrealistic.”

Comment:

As mentioned above, the views in question are obtained from the combined living/dining

rooms of each unit, in a standing and sitting position. The views of the Opera House are

obtained by standing and/or sitting within the south-western corner of the living/dining

room, as indicated in Figure 8 above.

Third Step:

“The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of

the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas

is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are

highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed

quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to



say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is

usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate,

severe or devastating.”

Comment:

From differing levels, it is likely the views to the Opera House will be reduced and/or

removed from the south-western corner of the living/dining rooms of a number of units

within the building. However, this impact would differ across each level of the building

given the changes in the angle of the view to the Opera House. Furthermore, on some

levels (every alternate level), the addition of the Juliette balconies will only result in an

additional 250mm of cladding (as oppose to 860mm) at the south-western corner of each

unit to that which was originally approved (DA216/14) (refer to Figures 17 & 18 below).

Overall, the proposed balconies are likely to impact on views to the Opera House and the

water directly below the Opera House from the south-west corner of the living rooms of

some units within the building. The loss or reduction of views to the Opera House is

considered to be severe given it is an iconic structure. The overall view from all living

rooms to the Harbour Bridge, city and North Sydney skyline, water and water and land

interface will remain unaffected and will be retained.

Figure 17 – Cladding as approved under DA216/14 showing different cladding

design across levels of the building (Note: thick black line and dotted line showing

different cladding design to be applied alternately across each level of the building)



Figure 18 – Proposed Juliette balconies showing the relationship of the proposed

balcony and façade cladding with the dotted alternate cladding approved under

DA216/14 and shown in Figure 17 above.

Unit 26:

As demonstrated in Figure 15 above, the addition of the Juliette balcony to the unit

directly in front of Unit 26 will result in the loss of views to some of the Opera House and

water below from Unit 26. Any loss of views to the Opera House is considered to be

severe. However, the views obtained from the main part of the living/dining room (when

standing in the centre of the room) will be retained including views to the Harbour

Bridge, city and North Sydney skylines, water, and land and water interface.

Unit 31:

As demonstrated in Figure 16 above, the addition of the full width balcony to the unit

directly in front of Unit 31 will result in the loss of views to some of the Opera House and

water below from Unit 31. Any loss of views to the Opera House is considered to be

severe. However, the views obtained from the main part of the living/dining room (when

standing in the centre of the room) will be retained as part of the proposal including views

to the Harbour Bridge, city and North Sydney skylines, water, and land and water

interface.



Fourth Step:

“The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the

impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered

more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a

result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact

may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be

asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same

development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If

the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would

probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

Comment:

As discussed above, the proposed balconies will result in a loss of views to the Sydney

Opera House and some water from existing units within the building. However, the

proposed development is considered to be reasonable giving consideration to the

following:

The proposal impacts only those units within the building, and not surrounding

properties. Council is of the understanding that it is the applicants and the

buildings desire to provide the balconies as proposed.

Views from units benefiting from a Juliette balcony would be somewhat

reinstated where they are lost through the addition of a Juliette balcony to the unit

directly in front of them.

On a number of levels (every alternate level), the depth of the balcony is similar to

the depth of the cladding approved as part of the original application (refer to

Figures 17 & 18 above). Therefore where it is these elements causing view loss,

the extent of view loss is not significantly greater than that already approved.

Whilst impacting views of the Sydney Opera House, all units will continue to

retain expansive harbour views of the Harbour Bridge, City and North Sydney

skylines, water, and land and water interface.

The units within the building currently do not benefit from any private open

space. The addition of the balconies will provide each unit with some level of

private open space to improve amenity.

Council has been provided with a Strata Seal and Executive Committee Meeting

Minutes approving the proposed balconies.

Unit 26:

The upper sails of the Sydney Opera House would be retained and all other considerations

above apply, including that this unit would be benefiting from a similar Juliette balcony to

the one that will impact its views to the Opera House.

Unit 31:

The glazing to the front balconies will likely obscure part of the Sydney Opera House

from this unit. However, again, the upper sails will be retained. Furthermore, the unit

benefits from a Juliette balcony which will reinstate part of the view to be lost.



Conclusion

The types of views potentially affected by the proposed development are water views and

views of the Sydney Opera House from the living/dining room windows of units within

the subject building. Such views are considered to be valuable under the Tenacity

principles.

Whilst the Tenacity Test suggests that the view loss caused by the proposal has the

potential to be severe from some units within the building, the view loss is considered to

be reasonable for the reasons stated above.

Surrounding development

Given the topography and height of buildings, district harbour and skyline views may be

available from buildings further away from the subject site, including North Sydney and

beyond. The addition of the balconies is unlikely to the result in view loss from any of

these building simply because the balconies are orientated on the southern side of the

building and will largely not be visible from these distant buildings.

The increase in the parapet height by 100mm is also unlikely to generate a loss of

significant views when compared to the originally approved development application

because of the minor addition in height to this parapet.

Nevertheless, the retention of any distant views from these building in relation to the

proposed development is considered to be unreasonable in this instance.

(1)(c) To maintain solar access to existing dwellings, public reserves and streets,

and to promote solar access to future development

An examination of the shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the

addition of the balconies will result in only an additional 15 minutes of overshadowing to

the western windows of each unit and these windows and internal open plan living spaces

will continue to receive sun from 12:30pm on June 21. Given the very minor reduction in

solar access, and the fact that the primary living spaces of each unit will retain solar

access from 12:30pm, the overshadowing is considered to be acceptable.

It is unlikely that the full width balcony on the Level 2 southern elevation will result in a

reduction of solar access to the lower Level 1 unit beneath because any shadows from this

new balcony will fall on areas to the south of the site and not to the north at the location

of the windows and internal living space of the lower Level 1 unit.

No material additional overshadowing is likely from the remaining modifications

proposed as part of this application, including the 100mm increase in the parapet height.

(1)(d) To maintain privacy for residents of existing dwelling and to promote privacy

for residents of new buildings

The proposed modification, namely the addition of the balconies to each unit is unlikely

to result in material privacy impacts for adjoining properties. As indicated in Figure 17



below the views are primarily to the south, across Upper Pitt Street to the harbour, Opera

House, Harbour Bridge and city skyline. The balconies face away from surrounding

residential development and whilst they will provide some outlook to the west across St.

Aloysius College, the provision of the balconies will not significantly increase the level of

privacy impacts to the school, primarily because the existing living room windows of

each unit already overlook the school. Furthermore, the primary views from these

balconies will be across the roofs of the school to the iconic views of the Harbour Bridge

and Sydney Harbour.

The use and capacity of the Juliette balconies is also highly restricted by their size. With

a depth of 650mm and length of 1.2 metres they are unlikely to be utilised for long

periods of time and by large numbers of people. As such, they are unlikely to be a cause

of material privacy impacts to surrounding development.

Figure 17 – Aerial view of the subject site and adjoining properties showing the

primary view lines from the proposed balconies

(1)(e) To ensure compatibility between development, particularly at zone boundaries

(1)(f) To encourage an appropriate scale and density of development that is in

accordance with, and promote the character of the area

The proposed modifications, including the provision of balconies across the building

would not result in a substantial change to the built form of the subject apartment

building. The balconies will provide greater articulation to the currently nondescript

façade and enhance the buildings contribution to the streetscape. There would be no

change to the scale and density of the existing development.



Conclusion:

It is concluded that the proposed modifications would have no material impact on neighbouring

properties in terms of the character of the locality and the general amenity of existing units within

the subject building and adjoining properties.

5. Heritage

As discussed in the Referrals Section of this report, the modification application was discussed

with Council’s Conservation Planner due to the location of the site adjacent to the heritage listed

item at No. 1 – 5 Jeffreys Street and no objection was raised to the proposed works, including the

balconies.

The proposed modification is therefore considered to be acceptable having regard to Clause 5.10

of NSLEP 2013.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013

The proposal is generally consistent with section B1 of the DCP relating to residential

developments and section C8.0 & C8.2 being the character statement for the Kirribilli

Neighbourhood within the Kirribilli Planning Area.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 – Part B Section 1- Residential Development

Complies Comments

1.2 Social Amenity

Population Mix

Maintaining Residential

Accommodation

Yes The proposed modification would not change the population mix and the

level of residential accommodation available within the locality.

Affordable Housing

Housing for Seniors/Persons with

disability

Yes The proposed modification would not affect the supply of affordable

housing and housing for seniors or people with disabilities.

1.3 Environmental Criteria

Topography Yes The proposed modification would not alter the existing topography of the

subject site.

Visual Impact Yes The existing apartment building sits prominently within its surrounds and

is highly visible from the harbour due to its height and elevated setting.

The addition of the cantilever balconies across the building are

considered to be appropriate giving consideration the use and

context/location of the building. The proposed construction method

(cantilever), design (incorporating the balconies, in particular the Juliette

balconies largely within the existing building envelope) and materials

(Alucobond cladding to match the façade treatment approved under the

original application) will ensure that the new impact of the balconies on

the landscape and skyline is minimised.

The remaining modifications, including the additional 100mm to the

parapet height, are minor and unlikely to have an undesirable material

impact on the Kirribilli skyline when viewed from the harbour.

Views Yes An assessment of view loss against the Tenacity Principle was undertaken

earlier within this report and the extent of view loss from the proposal is

considered to be reasonable.

Solar Access Yes An examination of the shadow diagrams submitted with the application

indicate that the addition of the balconies will result in only an additional

15 minutes of overshadowing to the western windows of each unit and

these windows and internal open plan living spaces will continue to

receive sun from 12:30pm on June 21. Given the very minor reduction in

solar access, and the fact that the primary living spaces of each unit will




Complies Comments

retain solar access from 12:30pm, the overshadowing is considered to be

acceptable.

It is unlikely that the full width balcony on the Level 2 southern elevation

will result in a reduction of solar access to the lower Level 1 unit beneath

because any shadows from this new balcony will fall on areas to the south

of the site and not to the north at the location of the windows and internal

living space of the lower Level 1 unit.

No material additional overshadowing is likely from the remaining

modifications proposed as part of this application, including the 100mm

increase in the parapet height.

Acoustic Privacy

Yes Acoustic impacts from the proposed modification is unlikely to have a

material impact upon neighbourhing properties because:

The larger balconies on the southern façade are orientated

towards the harbour, away from neighbouring residential

properties.

The Juliette balconies are limited in size which will restrict

their use and capacity, and orientated away from neighbourhing

residential properties.

The pump and hydrant pump room are located along the street

frontage (in accordance with the requirements of the Fire

Brigade) and not within close proximity to residential

properties.

The proposed vents will replace existing approved service

windows in the fire stair, thereby likely reducing any acoustic

impacts at this location.

Visual Privacy Yes The proposed modification, including the balconies, is not expected to

generate any visual privacy impacts because:

The larger balconies on the southern façade are orientated

towards the harbour with no direct views into neighbourhing

properties.

The Juliette balconies are limited in size which will restrict

their use and capacity, and have a primary orientation to the

south, south-west, across the harbour.

The proposed vents will replace existing approved service

windows in the fire stair, thereby likely reducing the

opportunity for overlooking from these windows.

There is already opportunity mutual overlooking within he

subject building and the addition of the balconies is unlikely to

enhance this opportunity.

1.4 Quality built form

Context Yes The subject site is located within a highly built-up area with a diverse mix

of built forms. The balconies, including the partially glazed balustrades

and Alucobond exterior, have been designed to complement the

previously approved façade upgrade and adjoining developments which

are contemporary in nature.

Overall, the proposed modification is considered to appropriately respond

to the opportunities and constraints of the site.

Streetscape Yes The proposal will not impact upon the existing Council infrastructure

within the vicinity of the site. Nevertheless, a condition requiring a bond

to protect Council’s assets throughout construction has been

recommended.

The addition of the balconies to the façade of the building will provide

greater articulation to the façade and improve the aesthetic quality of the

existing building. The use of Alucobond material across the exterior of

the balconies to match the remainder of the building (as approved under

the original DA) will ensure the balcony structures are well integrated

into the building. The proposed glazed balustrading is also




Complies Comments

complementary to the contemporary building materials. Overall, it is

considered that the balconies have been appropriate designed to integrate

with the existing building and minimise the overall bulk and scale of the

building within its surrounds.

Whilst the revised location of the proposed hydrant booster assembly and

pump room will result in these structures being visible from Upper Pitt

Street, the location of this infrastructure has been influenced by the

requirements of the NSW Fire Brigade and the constraints of the site. For

these reasons, their proposed location is considered to be acceptable.

Laneway Yes The proposed modification would have no impact upon Robertson Lane.

Subdivision Pattern No change The proposal would not change the subdivision pattern of the locality.

Sitting No change The proposed modifications would not alter the sitting and/or orientation

of the existing building and the balconies are proposed on the southern

façade of the building so that they address the primary street frontage

(Upper Pitt Street).

Setback – Side and Rear No change The proposal will not significantly alter the side, rear or front setbacks of

the existing apartment building when measured from the exterior building

line (external walls).

Building Separation No change The existing separation between buildings within and outside the subject

site would generally be unchanged because the proposed works would be

carried out substantially within the existing building envelope not

affecting the separation distance between habitable rooms and balconies

or non-habitable rooms. Appropriate conditions have been recommended

to manage acoustic impacts from the proposed air conditioning plant on

adjoining residences.

Form Massing Scale

Built Form Character

Yes The height, form and the visual mass of the existing apartment building

would generally be maintained.

Overall, the form, scale and character of the existing building, that being

an eight (8) storey residential flat building, will remain unaltered by the

proposed modifications.

The addition of the balconies to the building is considered to be

reasonable given the function of the building as a residential building and

is consistent with other flat buildings within the immediate vicinity,

namely No. 50 – 58 Upper Pitt Street. As discussed throughout this

report, the balconies have been designed giving consideration to the scale

and form of the existing building and will provide greater articulation to

its façade and improve the aesthetic quality. The use of Alucobond

material across the exterior of the balconies to match the remainder of the

building (as approved under the original DA) will ensure the balcony

structures are well integrated into the building. The proposed glazed

balustrading is also complementary to the contemporary building

materials.

The minor 100mm increase in the parapet height, required as part of the

larger remedial works to the building, is unlikely to impact upon the

perceived scale or overall height of the building.

The deletion of the windows in the fire stair and replacing them with

louvred screens will not significantly alter the form, character of scale of

the building.

Having regard to the above, the proposed development is considered to be

acceptable in terms of bulk, scale and built form character.

Dwelling Entry No change The proposal would not alter the existing main entry to the apartment

building.

Roofs Yes The existing roof will be extended to cover the top floor balconies (both

Juliette and full width). The roof extension will be flat to match the

existing roof and feature Alucobond cladding to match the remaining

parapet.




Complies Comments

No objection is raised to this component of the proposal.

Materials Yes

As mentioned throughout this report and demonstrated in Figure 1, the

applicant proposes to clad the exterior of the balconies in Alucobond

cladding to match the remainder of the building (as approved under the

original DA) with glazed balustrades. The proposed materials will ensure

the balconies are well integrated into the existing building and considered

to be reasonable. Appropriate conditions were imposed on the original

consent to manage reflectivity of the Alucobond material. An additional

condition is recommended that the proposed balustrading on the

balconies be clear glazed (refer to Condition C13).

Balconies – Apartments No

(acceptable

on merit)

The proposed width of the balconies does not comply with the minimum

two (2) metre width. This non-compliance is considered to be reasonable

because:

The balconies are being constructed on an existing residential

flat building and the design is guided by the constraints of the

existing building.

The units do not currently benefit from any private or

communal open space and the proposed balconies, whilst non-

compliant in size, will provide some private open space for

residents.

Wider balconies are not considered appropriate in the site

circumstance given the concerns raised regarding view loss.

1.5 Quality Urban Environment

High Quality Residential

Accommodation

Yes The proposed modifications will continue to ensure residents are provided

with a high level of internal amenity within each unit. As discussed

previously, the balconies will not result in a material loss of solar access

to internal unit spaces on June 21.

Vehicle Access and Parking No change The proposal would not change the existing parking and vehicle access

arrangements to from either Upper Pitt Street or Robertson Lane.

Site Coverage

Unbuilt Upon Areas

Landscaped Area

Yes & No

The proposed balconies (11.48m2) will result in a minor increase in site

coverage at the site and a reduction in unbuilt upon area as shown in the

table below. As the site will continue to maintain compliance with site

coverage, and the non-compliance with the unbuilt upon area will be

slightly reduced, the proposed modification is considered to be reasonable

in this instance.

Site Area:

1878sqm

Existing As

Approved

under

DA216/14

Proposed Complies

Site coverage

(Max 45% or

845.1m2)

471.17m2

(25.09%)

479.72m2

(25.54%)

491.2m2

(26.16%)2

Yes

Unbuilt Upon

Area

(Max 15% or

281.7m2)

1296.83m2

(69.05%)

1295.03m2

(68.96%)

1283.55m2

(68.35%)

No

(Improved)

Landscaped Area

(Min 40% or

751.2m2)

Approx.

110 m2

(5.86%)

Approx

103.25m2

(5.50%)

No change No

Private and Communal Open Space No

(acceptable

on merit)

The subject site does not currently provide any usable and suitable private

and communal open space with the majority of the site occupied by on-

site parking. Whilst limited, the proposed balconies will provide some

levels of private open space for existing and future residents.

Safety and Security Yes The introduction of the balconies will provide increased opportunity for

passive surveillance of the public domain.

Landscaping

Front Gardens

No change The proposed modification works will not alter the existing landscaping

or gardens at the site.

1.6 Efficient Use of Resources




Complies Comments

Energy Efficiency Yes The applicant has submitted updated BASIX certificates to demonstrate

compliance with the energy efficiency requirements. A condition is

recommended to modify the original condition of consent to reflect these

updated certificates.

Kirribilli Planning Area (Kirribilli Neighbourhood)

The application has been assessed against the relevant controls in Part B of North Sydney DCP

2013. The proposal is also generally consistent with Part C of North Sydney DCP 2013 in

particular Section 8 of the Character Statement for Kirribilli Planning Area and Section 8.2 for

Kirribilli Neighbourhood. The proposed modification will retain the existing high density

residential development at the site, with no material adverse impact on the built form character of

the locality.

As discussed throughout this report, whilst the addition of the balconies will result in loss of

views to the Opera House from the south-western corner of some units within the building, the

level of view loss is considered to be reasonable when assessed against the Tenacity Principle.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

ALL LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

All likely impacts of the proposed development have been considered within the context of

this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL CONSIDERED

1. Statutory Controls Yes

2. Policy Controls Yes

3. Design in relation to existing building and Yes

natural environment

4. Landscaping/Open Space Provision Yes

5. Traffic generation and Carparking provision Yes

6. Loading and Servicing facilities NA

7. Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining Yes

development (Views, privacy, overshadowing, etc.)

8. Site Management Issues Yes

9. All relevant S79C considerations of Yes

Environmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Act 1979



RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

Owners consent

Council has given careful and detailed consideration on the issue of Owners Consent and it is

considered that adequate owners consent has been provided for the purpose of the lodgement and

assessment of this application. Any dispute regarding the validity of the owners consent is a

matter for the owners of the Strata Plan and should be resolved through NSW Fair Trading.

Amenity impacts of full width balconies

An assessment of view loss against the Tenacity Principle was undertaken including for Unit

26 and Unit 31 within the subject building. The detailed view loss analysis determined that,

whilst there would be some loss of views to the Opera House and water below, that this view

loss was considered to be reasonable.

An assessment of the shadow diagrams and solar access provided by the applicant also indicated

that each unit would continue to receive the majority of existing solar access on June 21, with the

exception of only 15 minutes. Similarly, there would be no loss of solar access to the southern

facing ground floor unit as a result of the full width balcony above, because any shadows from

this new balcony above will fall on areas to the south of the site and not to the north at the

location of the windows and internal living space of the lower Level 1 unit.

Balcony encroachment upon car spaces on Upper Pitt Street

In the absence of a contact telephone number, an email was sent to the submittor in response to

this issue, with a request to contact Council to discuss this further. To date, no response has been

received from the submittor. In light of this, a response has been provided based on an

interpretation of the limited information provided in the submission.

It is understood from the submission that the submittor is concerned that the balconies on the

southern façade will encroach on the street level car spaces along Upper Pitt Street (refer to

Figure 18 below). These car spaces are private and owned by individual lot owners within the

subject building.



Figure 18 – The subject site and street level car spaces

As indicated in Figure 19 below (Drawing No. S96.01A), the proposed balconies will not

encroach over these car spaces.

Figure 19 – Location of proposed balconies in relation to the existing lower level parking

Impact from asbestos removal



Conditions of consent were imposed on the original development consent to manage the removal

and disposal of asbestos at the site.

Design of balconies and impact upon the buildings appearance

The balconies, including the partially glazed balustrades and Alucobond exterior, have been

designed to complement the previously approved façade upgrade and adjoining developments

which are contemporary in nature (refer to Figure 20 below).

Figure 20 – Façade re-cladding as approved under the original application, and as

proposed under the subject application with the balconies

Financial burden of balcony project

The financial implications of the project are not a planning consideration under Section 79C of

the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The costs of the project are a private

matter between the owners within the building and the Body Corporate.

SITE SUITABILITY

The application is considered to be appropriate for the subject site for the reasons discussed

throughout this report.

PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposal is not considered to unreasonably impact on the amenity of surrounding properties,

residents within the subject building or the neighbourhood and is therefore considered to be in the

public interest.

CONCLUSION

The proposal involves modification under Section 96(2) of the Act to Development Consent

216/14 for alterations and additions to an existing eight storey apartment building including new

cladding to the façade, new windows, demolition of existing roof top chimneys, installation of

roof top air conditioning plants and fire safety upgrade works at 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli.



The proposed modification includes:

1. Installation of balconies on the western and southern facades of the building over Levels 1

- 8

2. Relocating the pump room and hydrant booster

3. Raising the existing parapet by 100mm

4. Blocking the existing fire stair windows and adding vents

The proposed modifications are substantially the same as the development originally approved by

Council. The proposed amendments are considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area

and do not present any additional material adverse impact to adjoining properties or units within

the subject building, as discussed throughout this report.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to amended conditions of

consent.

RECOMMENDATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED)

THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General

Manager as the consent authority, modify Development Consent No. 216/14 dated 10 September

2014 in respect of a proposal for alterations and additions to an existing eight storey apartment

building including new cladding to the façade, new windows, demolition of existing roof top

chimneys, installation of roof top air conditioning plants and fire safety upgrade works on land

described at 48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli, under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act only insofar as will provide for the following:

1. To modify Condition A1 to read as follows:

Development in Accordance with Plans/documentation

A1. The development application must be carried out in accordance with plans

identified in Condition A1 of the consent and endorsed with Council’s approval

stamp, except as modified by the modifications shown in colour on:

Plan No. Issue Title Drawn by Received

S.96.01A A Site Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.02A A Ground Floor Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S.96.03A A Typical Level Plan Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.04A A Elevation – North,

Section

Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.05A A Elevation - East Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.06A A Elevation - South Marston Architects 18.09.15

S96.07A A Elevation - West Marston Architects 18.09.15

(Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in

accordance with the determination of Council, Public Information)



2. To amend Condition C12 to read as follows:

BASIX Certificate

C18. Under clause 97A(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation

2000, it is a condition of this development consent that all the commitments listed

in the following BASIX Certificates are fulfilled.

Unit/Lot No. BASIX Certificate No.

48 A191494_02

49 A192317_02

50 A192395_02

51 A192363_02

52 A192403_02

53 A192384_02

54 A192356_02

55 A192391_02

56 A192364_02

57 A192404_02

58 A192372_02

59 A192385_02

60 A192357_02

61 A192396_02

62 A192365_02

63 A192406_02

64 A192373_02

65 A192386_02

66 A192358_02

67 A192397_02

68 A192366_02

69 A192407_02

70 A192374_02

71 A192387_02

72 A192359_02

73 A192398_02

74 A192367_02

75 A192408_02

76 A192375_02

77 A192388_02

78 A192360_02

79 A192399_02

80 A192368_02

81 A192409_02

82 A192376_02

83 A192389_02

84 A192361_02

85 A192400_02

86 A192369_02



87 A192410_02

88 A192377_02

89 A192390_02

90 A192362_02

91 A192402_02

92 A192370_02

93 A192411_02

94 A192382_02

Plans and specifications complying with this condition must be submitted to the

Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of any Construction

Certificate. The Certifying Authority must ensure that the building plans and

specifications submitted, referenced on and accompanying the issued

Construction Certificate fully satisfy the requirements of this condition.

(Reason: To ensure the proposed development will meet the Government’s

requirements for sustainability and statutory requirements)

3. The insert Condition C13 to read as follows:

Glazed Balustrading

C13. The glazed balustrading on all balconies shall be clear glazed and not coloured,

frosted or opaque.

Plans and specifications complying with this condition must be submitted to the

Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of any Construction

Certificate. The Certifying Authority must ensure that the building plans and

specifications submitted, referenced on and accompanying the issued

Construction Certificate fully satisfy the requirements of this condition.

(Reason: To ensure that clear glazing is installed on the proposed balcony

balustrades)

4. To insert Condition I3 to read as follows:

Balconies to be Common Property

I3. All balconies approved as part of this application shall remain common property

within the strata plan.

(Reason: To clarify balcony ownership)



NATALIE MOORE LUKE DONOVAN

ASSESSMENT OFFICER A/TEAM LEADER (ASSESSMENTS)

STEPHEN BEATTIE

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

30

10

30

20

20

30

10

20

30

20

10

30

20

30

30

20

40

10

40

30

20

40

10

40

40

30

30

10

20

KIRRIBILLI

VILLAGE SQ

UARE

DR

IVE

BR

OU

GH

TO

N

WILLOUGHBY

BRAD

FIEL

D

PAR

K

HU

MP

HR

EY

PL

AC

ES

TR

EE

TH

UM

PH

RE

Y P

LA

CE

CRESC

ENT

BURTON

STREET

PITT STREET

STANTON LOOKOUT

JE

FF

RE

YS

ST

RE

ET

BLIGH

S

TREET

Jeffreys StreetWharf

PLACE

COPESLOOKOUT

FITZROY

STREET

UPPER

P ITT STREET PEDE

STRIAN

L INK

CARABELLA

CAPTAIN HENRY WATERHOUSE RESERVE

ROBERTSON

UPPER

KIRRIBILLI

LANE

STREET

DR MARY BOOTH LOOKOUT

WRIXTON PARK

ROBERTSON L

ANE

ROAD CLO

SURE

PARKES

S

TREET

ELAMANG

WA

RU

DA

A

VE

NU

EWA

RU

DA

PITT STREET

MCBURNEY LANE

STREET

22

(20A

)1

8-2

0(1

2C

)16

14

12A

12

12B

(10A

)

10B

10

(4A

)8

64

2

48

50

56-5

2

102

14A

104

106

42

29

31A

108

14

40

45

110

34

43

38

1

41

12

27A

31

2725

40

2

32

23

1

3A

5

21

7-9

11-1

719

19

21

23-2

52

7-2

93

133

30

35-3

7

17

45

2826

46

44

42

40

38

36

44-50

34

32

30

28

24

22

20

18

31B

1-5

33

(46)

1

47

35

57

48

37

55

88

59

(49)

50

49B

61

49A

1(2

A)

63-65

2

60

2

51-55

62

64

69

8

66

68

101

58

3

71

57

12

70-72

56

54

73

98

85-87

50

2

59

1

74-76

75

100

4

(6)77

61

48

3

102

78

879

46

104

81

63

80

83

44

106

63A

82

42

8587

40

65

71

89

32

114

69

71

97

112

69

95

67

71A

34

93

84

36

91

38

100

98

16-18

96

29

94

44

(14-24)

92

90

20

31

31

22

88

33

24

149

35

50

26

147

37

145

28

143

39

52

30

141

78

139

1

32

137

76

41

3

54

135

5

74

32A

43

133

7

72A

56

131

72

37A6039

34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 (52) (54)

62

111

113(50)

113A 23

115

25

64

117

27

117A66

68

119

27A

27B

7029

121-123 22

125 24

31-39

12726

129

28

41

30

43

45

135A 3

2

47

34

55

5351

4947

4562

60

58

56A

(80)

78

(Lea

se - fo

r Valu

atio

n p

urp

oses o

nly

)

Bay 2

8

Bay 27

Bay 26

Pt 1

972310

Bay 25

743853

2

Bay 24

849664

Pt 1

849664

4


853336

31

20

7520671129

1140865785020 3

849664

Pt 1

849664(in stratum)

Energy Australia Lease

Substation No.6642

2

8496645 (Lease of Council road)852461

(in stratum)1785020

211140865743854

11

2

Pt 1

Pt 1 Pt 1Pt A Pt 1Pt B 1Pt 2 Pt 2 Pt 1

785020

97

55

37

17

12

76

14

93

67

56

936

70

9

73

160

30

07

58

300758 4 1Pt 1 5CT 3391646056655

127614Pt 4

1

22

82

98

1566863

1 1

21

Pt 3

C

60327

15

481

5

59702 1

79

268

0

917965

A

228

29

8

91

79

09

1276141215745

20

31

2230232

1

849663(in stratum)

261 5653365

2078

33

1

3

62

71

19

SP 39011

3

23

SP 4413421779569 779570

1

743851

77956

8

1

22

4

33

74

45

SP

79

55

4

311

1A

D

SP

116

33

100 748442

868

90

1

908369

70567108846

1017212

18

02

16

24

1

1

537

345

10

779571

1537

Sec B

1

830667

3

1

2 1055909SP 71204

1

9276

34

Sec B

4453

1

22

SP 5329663688

64

59

3

1

11

19

39

1

A

1103130

743861

(spli t for Valuation purposes only)

743

86

2

Sec A

1

630528

9650

413373924453

695

18

7984

63 211

1

1

1 Sec A

377

418

(in s tr a

t um

)

1

10

317

21

2

SP

66

045

184453

66

771

7069

14

D

33618915

1

2021

101

2

4413

39

207833

95

25

87

3968

13 1

3968

13D

621580E

236361

BSec A

10388

33

1

ASec A

65021

31

2

4453

45610

9

96

4453

6542

1

1900702

B1 A

1 9

60518932077 456105

10

621582

1108496

1

9026

66

1

1

58

49

66

2

1155

008

1

567224

1537

3

14

3

Sec B

880841

2321

45

851449

101

1

11

95

50

2

2

10

15

SP 50720

33064

102

27

16

Sec B

SP 32094

17

2

28A

218

77

2

1

29A

1078553

1537

A

445

71

1

30

7350

80

SP

13

017

4453

B

4

Sec B

31

2

2

21

2

32

Sec C

6564

62

114

8739

1537

Sec B

793871

22

331537

SP 1036

1113253

A

34

6

4

SP

14

142

118

26

78

8153

41

B

1

100

3

456106

329

SP

16930

SP

69080

6

630381

SP 50441SP 53759SP 54600

4388

72

2

Sec C

2

1537

SP 8

6670

456106

2

1

SP

101

61

8

1

SP

20043

101

08

58

6685

57

3221

92

3

8382

19

CT 3

9

1

12

21555

8

11

1343

25

102

1

1

101

SP 9

210

SP 4

1033

1

SP

355

86

1155

13

3023

111

111

476

SP 2619

706725

9263

30

111

SP 7

8922

5901

21

B

SP

6816

0SP

774

06

920470

2

21555

A

2

SP 6

1861

739154

SP 8

595

1396588

SP 12521

SP 2

1835

3965

882

5

SP 2

2430

CT

37

SP 11318

3

1276

9349

75

A

11

401308

SP 9

300

9356

30

SP 62930

1

9271

34

101

C

2

SP

1017

8

SP

868

56

13

406127

1

SP

22183

871097

1

1276

9267

73

SP 2311SP 3699SP 21890

SP 62288

1

SP

12

848

1

6564

63

978239

535912

14

9263

86

91

289

9

SP 7596SP 79246

4561

07

2

1

SP

2699

2

52

18

2

858699

1

101

933183

6215

82

1

201

102613

110

8341

9

5

931061

4

948337

2

3538

1150961

3

15

2

604816

559003

11

1

3267601

1095443

1

1

572899

(Lease - for Valu

ation

purposes only)

2

3

572899

SP

15930

1

SP

104

59

SP 9692

SP

9429

340557

SP

136

46

A

SP

11

176

SP 5

7048

SP

19352

SP

41832

90937

A

SP

10675

SP 5

7858

SP

32101

6

10

SP 3253

79235

4829

590196

7855

6

1

7

SP 1

8591

SP 5

3946

SP 8

0191

928827

2

37317

439244

A

1

B

SP 1

6710

84852

614882

SP 2

116

1

3

2

SP 355

SP 5

163

SP

14361

SP 1

5581

SP 3

3713

1

995939S

P 1

4077

548693

2

SP 9

616

169973

SP 4

5139

9036

98

SP 5186

1

SP 1

2061

SP 3

4663

SP 4701

1166282

200

4996

41

1

1154168

SP 3

174

9

1276

100

Sec 2

1050

614

101

1155

20(L

eas

e -

for V

alu

at io

n

purp

ose

s o

nly)

SP

54

3398

12

1

A

1

1

4140

C

SP 30765

337583

(Lea

se -

for V

alu a

tion

p urp

o ses

only)

25

North Sydney CouncilCopyright:

Copyright © North Sydney Council - No part of this map may be reproducedwithout permission. Commercial decisions should not be made based on information contained in this map without first checking details held by the responsible Government authority.

Further details can be obtained by calling (02) 9936 8100 or e-mail [email protected].

ATTACHMENT TO IPP10 - 01/06/2016

For privacy reasons, the architectural plans have been removed

from this document prior to publishing on the web. The plans

attached to the hard copy report may be viewed at Stanton Library

during opening hours or at the Customer Service Centre in Council

Chambers between 9.00am and 4.00pm Monday to Friday.

ATTACHMENT TO IPP10 - 01/06/2016 Page 47

item - reports - north sydney council - home · following this assessment, and having regard to the...

Documents