state significant development and modification …

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR A PROJECT APPROVAL ASSESSMENT REPORT: Block 1, Central Park (former Carlton United Breweries site) SSD 6554 and MP08_0253 MOD 5

Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report Sections 89H and 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 August 2015

NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment

ABBREVIATIONS Applicant Central Park JV No 2 CIV Capital Investment Value Commission Planning Assessment Commission Concept Plan Approved Concept Plan for the redevelopment of the site (MP06_0171) Consent Development Consent Council City of Sydney Council Department Department of Planning and Environment EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 EPI Environmental Planning Instrument LEP Local Environmental Plan LGA Local Government Area Minister Minister for Planning Part 3A Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 RMS Roads and Maritime Services RtS Response to Submissions SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Secretary Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy SSD State Significant Development TfNSW Transport for NSW Cover Photograph: Visualisation of Block 1 facing south west, from Broadway (Source:

Applicant’s RtS) © Crown copyright 2015 Published August 2015 Department of Planning and Environment www.planning.nsw.gov.au Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/

Central Park, Chippendale Secretary’s Assessment Report (SSD 6554 and MP08_0253 MOD 5)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a concurrent assessment of a State Significant Development (SSD) Application (SSD 6554) for a mixed use building on Block 1 at Central Park, Chippendale (former Carlton United Breweries site) and a section 75W modification application to a Project Approval for Blocks 1, 4N and Central Thermal Plant (MP 08_0253 MOD 5). The applicant is Central Park JV No 2. The applications seek approval for the following: • construction of an 18 storey mixed use building on Block 1 providing for 279 residential

apartments, residential facilities, 1,137m² of ground level retail/commercial floor space, four levels of basement car parking to service Block 1 and Block 4N, and stratum subdivision; and

• deletion of approved Blocks 1 and 4N from project approval MP 08_0253 which included commercial buildings on Blocks 1 and 4N in conjunction with a Central Thermal Plant (CTP) in the basement under the Brewery Yard. It is now proposed to only develop the CTP and associated infrastructure and not proceed with the development of Blocks 1 and 4N as commercial buildings. This modification is sought subject to approval of the SSD applications for Block 1 and 4N which would allow alternative developments on those sites.

The applications were publicly exhibited for 45 days between 10 September and 24 October 2014. The Department received six submissions from public authorities including City of Sydney Council. Council objects to the SSD application and raised key concerns in relation to the suitability of the envelope for residential development and internal amenity impacts. The key assessment issue for the SSD application is the size and configuration of the proposed floor plate and internal residential amenity. Block 1 was originally intended to be a commercial building and the Concept Approval issued in 2007 allows a generously sized envelope to accommodate the large floorplate required by an office building. In 2013, in response to the limited market demand for commercial uses, the applicant sought approval to modify the mix of commercial and residential uses across the site. Following careful consideration, the Department and the Planning Assessment Commission supported the overall reduction in commercial uses, with Block 1 identified as a mixed use residential building. The proposal is generally consistent with the Concept Approval and the Department continues to support residential use on the site. However, the proposed 40 x 50 metre residential floor plate has resulted in an overall unacceptable level of internal amenity, with low levels of solar access and cross ventilation, a high number of apartments per lift corridor, low amenity dual key studios, and limited size and dimensions of private open space. The site is constrained by shadowing caused by existing taller buildings on the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) to the north. In this respect, it is difficult to achieve high levels of solar access. The Department therefore strongly advised the applicant to explore all options to ensure that all other aspects of internal amenity are maximised. Despite the additional information and justification provided by the applicant, the Department remains concerned about the overall level of residential amenity. In consultation with Council, the Department has made a number of recommendations which will provide material improvements to amenity for future residents, including: • the provision of an additional slot in the western façade of the building; • increase the depth of private open space areas; and • conversion of a number of poorly performing dual key apartments to single key apartments. These modifications will result in measurable improvements to the number of dual aspect apartments, cross ventilation, daylight access to apartments and within circulation corridors, the number of apartments off a core, outlook and open space.

Central Park, Chippendale Secretary’s Assessment Report (SSD 6554 and MP08_0253 MOD 5)


The Department is of the view that the proposal should only be supported subject to the implementation of the recommended modifications to ensure an overall acceptable level of internal residential amenity. The Department notes that the applicant is seeking to both maximise the total floor space across Central Park (255,000m2) and the maximum residential floor space (195,989m2) allowed for by the Concept Approval. The recommended modifications will result in a modest reduction in floor space (approximately 750m² or 3%) and dwelling yield (approximately 26 units or 9%) which may impact on the ability to maximise the residential and overall floor space across Central Park. However, the floor space allowance in the Concept Approval is provided as a maximum and it may not be reasonable for the applicant to expect that this may be achieved noting the changes to the land use distribution across Central Park over time. The Department also notes that, unlike commercial floor space, the uptake of residential development and the final dwelling yield is determined by a number of factors including the ability to achieve satisfactory levels of residential amenity. On this basis, the minor reduction in floor space is considered acceptable in the context of the significant improvements to amenity achieved as a result. The Department is satisfied that the proposal will continue to deliver high density housing in an inner city location with excellent access to jobs, transport, open space, services and facilities consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the NSW Government’s NSW 2020 and A Plan for Growing Sydney. Subject to the recommendations provided in this report and subsequent conditions, the Department recommends that the modification SSD Application and modification to the Project Approval is approved.

Central Park Secretary’s Assessment Report (SSD 6554 and MP08_0253 MOD 5)

NSW Government 1 Department of Planning and Environment

1. BACKGROUND This report provides a concurrent assessment of a State Significant Development (SSD) Application (SSD 6554) seeking approval for a mixed use building on Block 1 at Central Park, Chippendale in conjunction with a section 75W modification application to a project approval (MP08_0253 MOD 5) seeking to delete Block 1 and Block 4N from that project. In particular, the proposals seek approval for: • construction of an 18 storey building within Block 1 providing for 279 residential apartments,

residential facilities, 1,137m² of ground level commercial floor space, basement parking and stratum subdivision; and

• modification of the Project Approval for Blocks 1, 4N and the basement level Central Thermal Plant (CTP), excising Blocks 1 and 4N from that approval so that the CTP can be developed independently of Blocks 1 and 4N.

1.1. Central Park The Central Park site (previously known as the Carlton & United Breweries Site) is located in the south-western edge of the Sydney CBD (Figure 1). The site has a total area of 5.834 hectares and is broadly bound by Abercrombie Street to the west, Regent Street to the east, Broadway to the north and Kensington Street to the south. The site is located within the City of Sydney Local Government Area (LGA). The Central Park Site comprises a number of high density mixed use and residential buildings which are occupied and a number of construction sites.

Figure 1: Central Park site location and surrounding context (Base source: Nearmap)

Central Park



1.2. The Subject Site Block 1 and Block 4N are located on the northern boundary of the Central Park site as seen in Figure 2. The Brewery Yard basement is located to the south of Blocks 1 and 4N. The SSD application relates to Block 1. Block 1 has a site area of 3,535m2. It is bounded by Broadway to the north, Block 4N to the west, Central Park Avenue and the former Carlton Brewery building to the south, and Chippendale Way and Block 2 to the east.

Figure 2: Concept approval site boundary (outlined in red) and the location of Block 1 (outlined in blue) and Block 4N and Brewery Yard Basement (outlined in yellow) within the site (Base source: Nearmap) The site is located within an established inner city area, which is characterised by buildings of various uses, ages, heights, architectural styles and lot configurations that provide for diverse streetscapes. The University of Technology Sydney is located to the north of the site on the opposite side of Broadway. St Benedict’s Church and the University of Notre Dame are located to the west of Block 4N on the opposite side of Abercrombie Street. Within the Central Park site the other neighbouring blocks comprise high density mixed use residential developments. The area to the south east is primarily publicly accessible open space and includes the remaining brewery building and brewery yard. The site is well serviced by public transport, with Central Railway Station and the Lee Street Bus Interchange located approximately 300 metres to the east of the site, and with bus services stopping directly outside the site on Broadway. The site is currently under development, with a basement excavated in accordance with project approval MP08_0253 described below.



1.3. Approval History Concept Plan On 9 February 2007, the then Minister for Planning approved a Concept Plan (MP 06_0171) for redevelopment of the site for a mix of residential, commercial, retail uses and public open space. Key aspects of the Concept Approval include: • maximum 255,550m2 GFA (including a maximum 195,985m2 of residential and minimum

59,515m2 of non-residential); • a new park (6,000m2) and open space areas; • a contribution of $32 million for the provision of affordable housing within the locality; and • retention of 33 heritage items associated with the former brewery and its adaptive reuse of

existing buildings. Blocks 1 and 4 were approved as commercial buildings under the Concept Plan. Since its original approval, the Concept Approval has been modified on ten occasions as summarised in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Modifications to approved Concept Plan MP06_0171 Mod No. Description of Modification Approved

Mod 1 Correction of reference error in approval 18 Jul 2007 Mod 2 Major amendment to Concept Plan 5 Feb 2009 Mod 3 Amendment to timing of execution of Voluntary Planning Agreements 16 May 2010 Mod 4 Modification to lapsing clause 30 Aug 2011 Mod 5 Modification to B12 ‘ESD and Sustainable Design’ 31 Jul 2012 Mod 6 Modification to GFA within the Kensington Precinct; Block 6 and Block 10

envelopes and corrections to property references 24 Jul 2012

Mod 7 Amendment to the allocation of GFA of Block 3 within the Kensington Precinct 17 Jan 2013 Mod 8 Amendment to the allocation of GFA and the mix of residential and non-

residential GFA on the site. Revision of Central Park land use split to a maximum of 195,989m2 residential and minimum of 59,515m2 non-residential GFA. Use of Block 4S for student accommodation and Block 1 for residential use and reconfiguration of building envelopes to facilitate the separation of Blocks 1 and 4N from Block 4S.

23 Dec 2013

Mod 9 Reallocation of the GFA distribution across the Central Park site, amendments to building envelopes of Blocks 4S and 8 and modified public domain and access arrangements.

27 Nov 2014

Mod 10 Reallocation of the GFA distribution across the Central Park site, amendments to building envelopes of Blocks 1 and 4N.

20 Aug 2015

Of particular relevance to the current application is Modification 8, which approved a change in land use mix across the site, including the potential use of Block 1. Prior to Modification 8, Block 1 was designated for commercial use only. However, the modification approved a change in permissible uses to allow both commercial and residential floor space, with a maximum residential floor space of 25,000m². A key consideration by the Department in the assessment of the proposed change was the residential amenity of Block 1. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.3. Subsequent modification applications (MOD 9 and MOD 10) have made amendments to the permissible floor space and the building envelope for Block 1. This has resulted in a decrease in the maximum residential floor space from 25,000m² to 22,714m² and a minimum non-residential floor space of 1,137m². Compliance with these requirements is discussed in Section 5.4.



Blocks 1 and 4 Project Approval On 26 May 2010, the Planning Assessment Commission granted approval for Major Project MP08_0253 for the construction of a new 10-15 storey commercial building on Blocks 1 and 4(N+S), including 5 levels of basement car parking, space for a tri-generation plant, retail floor space, a child care centre and public domain works. Since its original approval, the Project Approval has been modified on five occasions as summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2 – Modifications to Project Approval MP08_0253 Mod No. Description of Modification Approved

Mod 1 Include the installation of a Central Thermal Plant (CTP) in the proposal, with space for future installation of tri-generation gas engines within the basement of the Brewery Building.

16 Feb 2012

Mod 2 Amendment to timing of provision of ‘Green Star Rating’. 31 July 2012 Mod 3 Stage excavation and construction of a reduced basement component to install

only a single gas engine used in co-generation mode. 10 May 2012

Mod 4 Remove Block 4S from the approval with associated amendments. 23 Dec 2013 Mod 6 Reinstate the previously approved CTP space under the brewery yard, within

the basement associated with Blocks 1 and 4, installation of a second tri-generation gas engine and associated infrastructure and amendments to conditions.

19 Mar 2015

As discussed above, the Project Approval has been acted upon with basement excavation having been carried out and the CTP under the Brewery Yard is currently under construction, with Stage 1 complete, and Stage 2 due for completion in September. 1.4. Other relevant applications Block 4N On 20 August, the Executive Director, Infrastructure and Industry Assessments approved under delegation SSD 6673 for the development of Block 4N as a mixed use building providing for residential, office and hotel accommodation and a childcare facility, four level basement car parking, retention and refurbishment of the Australia Hotel and Abercrombie Street terraces, public domain works, signage zones and stratum subdivision. Block 11 The Department is also considering the following applications relating to Central Park: • MP06_0171 MOD 11 – Modifications to Block 11 building envelope, public domain and GFA

allocation between development blocks across the Central Park site; and • SSD 6376 – Development of Block 11 for residential dwellings, associated non-residential

uses, child care centre and retail at ground floor level.



2. APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS

2.1 Summary descriptions Block 1 SSD application description The proposal, as exhibited in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), seeks approval for the construction of an 18 storey mixed use building providing for 281 residential apartments, residential facilities, 1,100m² of ground level commercial floor space, four levels of basement car parking to service Block 1 and Block 4N, and stratum subdivision.

Blocks 1, 4N and Brewery Yard Basement Project approval modification description The proposal, as exhibited, sought approval to excise Block 1 from that approval so that Block 4N and the Central Thermal Plant (CTP) in the Brewery Yard basement could be developed independently of Block 1. Effectively the proposed modification would reduce the extent of the approval to only relate to Block 4N, the CTP and Brewery Yard basement. 2.2 Response to Submissions Block 1 SSD application Following the public exhibition of the SSD and modification application, the Department requested that the applicant address the issues raised in the submissions as well as a number of specific issues the Department identified in its assessment of the proposal. The key issue which required addressing was the internal residential amenity and internal layout arising from the proposed floor plate. The applicant provided a Response to Submissions (RtS) (Appendix A), which contains further information and clarification of the key issues raised by the Department and agencies including a detailed analysis of residential amenity. However the proponent did not make any significant changes to the overall floor plate or floor plan layout. Key changes included: • amendments to some residential apartment layouts and inclusion of loggias in place of

balconies in some apartments; • amendments to the communal open space, residential facilities, entrance and lift lobby; • reduction in apartment numbers by two apartments (from 281 to 279 apartments); and • refinement of façade materials. Blocks 1, 4N and Brewery Yard Basement Project The modification request was updated to seek approval for excising Block 4N from the approval, (in addition to excising Block 1) as Block 4N will be developed in accordance with SSD6673 approved on 20 August 2015. The result being that only the Central Thermal Plant in the Brewery Yard basement would be developed under the original project approval, and to allow its development to be independent of Blocks 1 and 4N.



2.3 Description of proposals The key components and features of both proposals (as defined in the RtS) are provided in Table 3 below and are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Table 3: Key components of the modification request application

Aspect Description

BLOCK 1 SSD APPLICATION (SSD 6554) Built form • Construction of an 18 storey building (Block 1), maximum height

RL 79.80. Gross Floor Area • Total GFA of 23,851m2 comprising:

• 22,714m² residential GFA; • 1,137m² retail GFA;

Residential accommodation

• A total of 279 residential apartments comprising: • 76 x studio apartments; • 106 x 1 bedroom apartments; • 85 x 2 bedroom apartments; and • 12 x 3 bedroom apartments.

• Of the 279 apartments, 85 are dual key apartments. If they are all occupied separately, the proposal would provide 364 apartments, including: • 161 x studio apartments; • 179 x 1 bedroom apartments; • 24 x 2 bedroom apartments; and • 0 x 3 bedroom apartments.

Residential Facilities • Indoor gym, 20m swimming pool and jacuzzi on Level 2 • Outdoor terrace on Level 16 (280m²)

Commercial Use • 1,137m² of retail / commercial floor area at ground level Basement and Car Parking

• Fit out of part of the basement (construction of basement structure proposed as part of the SSD application for Block 4N SSD 6673) to service Block 1 including: • 196 residential spaces; • 5 retail spaces; • 10 car share spaces; • 7 service vehicle spaces; • 9 motor cycle spaces; • 46 bicycle spaces; • 256 residential storage cages; and • Plant and waste management areas.

• Provision of 10 parking spaces in the basement for the use of the Brewery Yard.

Access • Provision of a service vehicle access point at Abercrombie Street and general vehicle access point from Central Park Avenue.

Stratum Subdivision • Stratum subdivision to facilitate staging of construction.

PROJECT APPROVAL MODIFICATION (MP08_0253 MOD 5) Proposal Excise Blocks 1 and 4N from that approval so that the Central Thermal Plant in

the Brewery Yard basement can be developed independently of Blocks 1 and 4N. The approval is sought subject to approval of this SSD.

The proposal has a Capital Investment Value of $101,871,050 and is expected to generate 100 construction jobs and 100 operational jobs once fully developed.



Figure 3: View facing south west from Broadway (Source: Applicant’s RtS)

Figure 4: View from Central Park Avenue towards Block 1 (Source: Applicant’s RtS)

Block 1

Block 4N

Block 2

Brewery

Block 1

Block 2

Block 4N



2.4 Project Need and Justification NSW 2021 NSW 2021 is the NSW Government’s strategic plan setting priorities for action and guiding resource attention. NSW 2021 is a 10 year plan to rebuild the economy, provide quality services, renovate infrastructure, restore government accountability and strengthen the local environment and community. The proposal supports NSW 2021 through the provision of new residential accommodation within close proximity of Sydney CBD that is supported by access to public transport and services within the locality. The proposal will also assist with achieving targets for housing within the subregional plan. The proposed retail uses within the building will also contribute to the Plan’s goal of growing business investment by 4% annually and the creation of 100 operational jobs in conjunction with 100 construction jobs which will contribute towards the goal of 1.25% employment growth in Sydney each year. Furthermore, the proposal will contribute towards building a liveable city by locating residential accommodation close to public transport, retail and recreation areas, increasing patronage on public transport and contributing towards the urban renewal of the locality. A Plan for Growing Sydney A Plan for Growing Sydney sets out the NSW Government’s vision for Sydney to 2031. The Plan anticipates that the population of Sydney will increase by 1.6 million people by 2031 and this will result in the need for approximately 689,000 new jobs across the metropolitan area. The Plan aims to accelerate urban renewal across Sydney and encourages growth in both infill and greenfield areas to stimulate balanced growth throughout Sydney. It also aims to make the best use of transport and infrastructure, making Sydney more sustainable and efficient. In planning for growth, the Plan focuses urban renewal in Strategic Centres, areas close to transport hubs and corridors and advocates efficient use of land in infill areas. The City of Sydney LGA is located within the Central Subregion and the site is located within the Global Sydney Strategic Centre. A key priority for the Strategic Centre is to provide capacity for additional mixed use development including additional housing and tourism facilities. The proposed development supports the strategic aims of the Plan by contributing to housing growth in an identified urban renewal infill site within close proximity of the Sydney CBD that is supported by access to public transport and services within the locality. 3. STATUTORY CONTEXT

3.1 State Significant Development The proposal is SSD because it is development with a capital investment value (CIV) in excess of $10 million and is located within the Broadway (CUB) site, (now known as Central Park), which is identified as a SSD site under clause 2 of Schedule 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

3.2 Modification of Project Approval Section 75W(2) of the EP&A Act provides that a proponent may request the Minister to modify the Minister’s approval for a project. The Minister’s approval of a modification is not required if the project, as modified, would be consistent with the original approval. As the proposed modification seeks to alter the approved plans and remove sections of the development (Block 1) from the approval, the modification requires the Ministers approval.



3.3 Determination under Delegation On 14 September 2011, the then Minister for Planning delegated functions under s89E and s75W of the EP&A Act to determine State Significant Development Applications and Modification Requests to the Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) in cases where: • the local Council has made an objection; and/or • a reportable political donation has been made; and/or • there are more than 10 submissions by way of objection by members of the public. In this case, the City of Sydney Council objects to the SSD application. The applications are therefore referred to the Commission for determination.

3.4 Permissibility The proposed mixed use development containing residential and retail uses is permissible under the terms of the Concept Approval MP06_0171. Compliance with the Concept Approval is discussed in Section 5.4.

3.5 Environmental Planning Instruments Under Section 79C of the Act, the Secretary’s report for a project is required to include a copy of, or reference to, the provisions of any environmental planning instruments (EPIs) that substantially govern the carrying out of a project and that have been taken into account in the assessment of the project. The following EPIs apply to the site: • State Environmental Planning Policy (State & Regional Development) 2011; • State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat

Development & accompanying Residential Flat Design Code; • State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004; and • Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2005. The Department’s consideration of relevant EPIs is provided in Appendix B and Section 5. In summary, the Department is satisfied that, subject to recommended modifications, the application is consistent with the requirements of the EPIs.

3.6 Objects of the EP&A Act Decisions made under the EP&A Act must have regard to the objects of the Act, as set out in section 5 of the Act and read as follows: (a) to encourage:

(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, (iv) the provision of land for public purposes, (v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and (vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native

animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and (viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and



(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The proposal complies with the above objects, particularly (a)(i), (ii) and (v) as the proposal promotes the orderly and economic use of the site and as the proposal contributes to the enhancement of the social and economic welfare of the community. The proposal includes measures to deliver ecologically sustainable development (Section 3.7).

3.7 Ecologically Sustainable Development The EP&A Act adopts the definition of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) found in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 6(2) of that Act states that ESD requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes and that ESD can be achieved through the implementation of: • the precautionary principle; • inter-generational equity; • conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; and • improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The development incorporates ecologically sustainable design initiatives and sustainability measures, including: • the building fabric design will meet the thermal comfort and energy consumption requirements of

BASIX and BCA; • connection to the Central Thermal Plant (CTP) providing chilled and hot water to the building; • efficient light fittings and all external lighting will be solar (except where required for security

reasons); • use of sustainable materials in construction; • apartment and lobby spaces designed to facilitate natural light and ventilation; • implementation of a Smart Travel Plan to encourage mode of transport other than personal

vehicle use; and • selection of water efficient fixtures and fittings (minimum WELS rating of 4 star for toilets, 3 star

for showers and 6 star for bathroom and tap fittings). The Department has considered the project in relation to the ESD principles. The Precautionary and Inter-generational Equity Principles have been applied in the decision making process via a thorough and rigorous assessment of the environmental impacts of the project. Overall, with the implementation of recommended modifications, the proposal is consistent with ESD principles and the Department is satisfied that the proposed sustainability initiatives will encourage ESD, in accordance with the objects of the EP&A Act.

3.8 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Block 1 SSD application On 25 June 2015 the Department notified the applicant of the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) for the SSD application. The Department is satisfied that Section 1.6 of the EIS adequately addresses compliance with the SEARs to enable the assessment of the application for determination purposes. Blocks 1, 4N and CTP Project modification Section 75W(3) of the EP&A Act provides that the Secretary may notify the proponent of the SEARs with respect to the proposed modification that the proponent must comply with before the matter will be considered by the Minister. No additional requirements were issued with respect to the proposed modifications, as sufficient information was provided to the Department in order to consider the application and the issues raised remain consistent with the key assessment requirements addressed in the original SEARs.



4. CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSIONS

4.1 Exhibition In accordance with Section 89F of the EP&A Act and Clause 83 of the EP&A Regulation, the Department exhibited the applications concurrently for 45 days from Wednesday 10 September 2014 until Friday 24 October 2014. The applications were publicly available on the Department’s website and exhibited at the Department’s Information Centre and at the City of Sydney Council office.

The Department also placed a public exhibition notice in the Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph on the 10 September 2014 and notified adjoining landholders and relevant State and local government authorities in writing. The Department received a total of five submissions, all from public authorities. No submissions were received from the general public. The Department received a further submission from Council in response to the RtS. Copies of the submissions may be viewed at Appendix A. A summary of the issues raised in the submissions is provided in the Table 4 below. The issues raised have been addressed in detail in Section 5 and/or by way of a recommended condition in the instruments of consent at Appendix D. Table 4: Summary of public authority submissions

City of Sydney (Council) Environmental Impact Statement

Council objects to the SSD proposal. Council have raised the following key issues: • the Concept Plan building envelope for Block 1 is unsuitable for residential use and

the proposed footprint results in unacceptable non-compliance with amenity standards for apartment design including: o excessive building depth (up to 46 metres); o inadequate building separation (18 metres to Block 4N); o inadequate building cores (serving 18 apartments from one core); o inadequate solar access, particularly at the lower levels; and o inadequate natural ventilation

• the proposal does not achieve design excellence, due to the identified deficiencies in internal amenity and architectural expression, but also the horizontal form of the development is out of step with the finer grain of adjoining development;

• basement car parking for Blocks 1 and 4N should be assessed independently as part of each independent application; and

• the proposed vehicular access from Central Park Avenue should be deleted with all access to be provided from Abercrombie Street.

Council recommends a number of amendments to improve amenity and design including: • dividing the block into distinct autonomous wings to achieve greater relief in

massing; • incorporating additional and / or wide slots to improve solar access and natural

ventilation; • incorporating more than one building core; • reconfiguring floor plates to provide more corner apartments; • reducing the number of poorly performing studio apartments and provide additional

2 and 3 bedroom apartments; • relocating living areas to the face of the façade in place of the proposed recessed

approach; • increasing western side setbacks from Block 4N; and • incorporating non-residential uses to levels 2 and 3 where amenity is the lowest and

confine residential uses to levels 4 and above in conjunction with modifications to improve amenity.



Response to Submissions

Council retains its objection to the proposal on the basis of residential amenity. Particular concerns are raised with respect to solar access and natural ventilation, including errors in the applicant’s calculations and the use of other standards for measuring solar access. Council recommends the following amendments: • convert lower levels (levels 3 to 9) to non-residential uses as they are the poorest

performing; • incorporate a fourth slot into the proposal; and • revise the apartment mix by reducing the number of poorly performing studio and 1

bedroom apartments, particularly at the lower levels. Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Environmental Impact Statement

TfNSW did not object to the SSD or modification proposal and provided the following comments: • bicycle parking should be identified on the plans; • bicycle parking should not be located within or near the reverse manoeuvre paths

of vehicles; • visitor bicycle parking should be located at ground floor level, in well-lit areas that

benefit from passive surveillance; • staff bicycle parking should be located at the upper basement level; • the construction traffic management plan should ensure pedestrian and cycle

movements will be maintained; • the quantum and security of bicycle parking should be increased; and • storage provision should also allow for bicycle storage within apartments.

Sydney Water Environmental Impact Statement

Sydney Water raised no objection to the SSD or modification proposals stating that the existing water and wastewater systems have adequate capacity to service the development.

4.2 Applicant’s Response to Submissions The applicant provided a response to the issues raised in submissions, which is included in the RtS document (Appendix A) and resulted in some amendments to the SSD application as outlined in Section 2.2. The Department is satisfied that the issues raised in all submissions have been addressed through the RtS, this report and the relevant appendices of the EIS and modification request. 5. ASSESSMENT

5.1. Block 1 SSD Application The Department has considered the objectives of section 79C of the EP&A Act, the EIS, the issues raised in submissions, and the RtS in its assessment of the proposal. The Department considers the key issues associated with the proposal to be: • residential amenity; and • consistency with concept approval. Each of these issues is discussed in the following sections (Section 5.3 and 5.4) of this report. Other matters were taken into consideration during the assessment of the applications and are discussed at Section 5.5.

5.2. Section 79C Evaluation Table 5 identifies the matters for consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act that apply to SSD, in accordance with section 89H of the EP&A Act. The EIS has been prepared by the applicant to consider these matters and those required to be considered in the SEARs and in



accordance with the requirements of section 78(8A) of the EP&A Act and schedule 2 of the Regulation. Table 5: Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

Section 79C(1) Evaluation Consideration

(a)(i) any environmental planning instrument Satisfactorily complies. The Department’s consideration of the relevant EPI’s is provided in Appendix B of this report

(a)(ii) any proposed instrument Not applicable (a)(iii) any development control plan Under clause 11 of the SRD SEPP, development control

plans do not apply to state significant development. Notwithstanding, consideration of relevant controls is provided in Section 5 and Appendix B.

(a)(iiia) any planning agreement Not applicable (a)(iv) the regulations Refer Division 8 of the EP&A Regulation

The application satisfactorily meets the relevant requirements of the Regulation, including the procedures relating to applications (Part 6 of the Regulations), public participation procedures for State Significant Developments and Schedule 2 of the Regulation relating to environmental impact statements

(a)(v) any coastal zone management plan Not applicable (b) the likely impacts of that development Appropriately mitigated or conditioned - refer to Section 5

of this report (c) the suitability of the site for the development

Suitable as discussed in Sections 3 and 5 of this report

(d) any submissions Consideration has been given to the submissions received during the exhibition period. See Sections 4 and 5 of this report

(e) the public interest Refer to Section 5 of this report 5.3. Residential Amenity 5.3.1. Introduction Amenity is a key issue in the development of Block 1 for residential purposes and more broadly across the Concept Plan site. The Department recognises the strategic importance of the Central Park site and the unique opportunities to provide a significant amount of commercial floor space and housing on the CBD edge with excellent public transport access. Noting this, and the constraints of the site in terms of location to the south of taller buildings on the UTS site, the Department has carefully balanced residential amenity with the strategic objectives for the site in its assessment of the Concept Plan and all applications for individual blocks. Block 1 was originally approved for commercial purposes, and as approved, included a large commercial floor plate (50 x 47 metres). In considering a previous modification of the Concept Plan (MP07_0171 MOD 8) to allow Block 1 to incorporate residential uses, the Department noted that amenity would be a key issue in the assessment of any future application on the site. In recommending approval, the Department advised that any future building on Block 1 would need to be well articulated and apartments would need to be well designed to ensure occupants are provided with a good level of amenity. The proposal seeks to achieve a similar envelope to that approved under the Concept Plan. Although the floor plate has been reduced in width compared to the previously approved commercial development of the site, the proposed floor plate remains very large (50 x 40 metres) as compared to other residential buildings on the site and the guidance for best practice building design in the Residential Flat Design Code and the recently adopted Apartment Design Guide (refer to detailed discussion below in Section 5.3.1).



Both the Department and Council identified that the large floor plate and building depth has a direct relationship to internal residential amenity in terms of apartment depths, solar access and ventilation. The applicant argues that when considered holistically, the proposal provides good levels of amenity. The applicant contends that amenity is not just a measure derived from the internal apartment layouts, but that a high level of amenity in this case is also achieved due to the site’s highly accessible location, on-site recreation facilities and open space, childcare and retail services in Central Park, and in the case of some apartments, access to views and outlook, as well as enjoyment of daylight and ventilation and high quality, well-designed apartments. The Department agrees that the site is very well located, but regardless of the location and access to services and facilities, an acceptable level of internal amenity must be provided for future occupants. The Department’s assessment has reviewed the proposal against the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and accompanying Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC). The Department has also considered the relevant amenity criteria within the recently adopted Apartment Design Guide (ADG) which supersedes RFDC for applications lodged from 19 June 2015, but is a relevant consideration as a draft document in this case. The Department’s assessment is set out in detail below and finds that the residential amenity of the proposed building falls short on a range of accepted standards set by SEPP 65, the RFDC and the ADG. The key issues include building depth, solar access, cross-flow ventilation, apartment size, apartment depths, single aspect apartments, circulation, building separation, balconies and communal open space. Some of the variations from the standards are minor, and could be justified if considered in isolation. However the Department considers that cumulatively, these variations result in an overall unacceptable level of residential amenity. The Department therefore considers that further improvements to residential amenity are required to enable the application to be supported. The Department has therefore recommended some modifications to be incorporated into the proposal. Key recommended modifications include: • provision of an additional fourth slot in the building with increased articulation to building

massing (refer to Section 5.3.2); • converting some dual key apartments to single key apartments to improve internal amenity

and remove poorly performing studios in the dual key apartments (refer to Section 5.3.3); • reducing the size of some studies without windows so that they are not capable of being

occupied as a bedroom (refer to Section 5.3.8); and • increasing the depth and size of balconies (refer to Section 5.3.9). The specific internal amenity issues are identified below. 5.3.2. Building Depth and Floorplate The RFDC and ADG outline that building depths of up to 18 metres are optimal to provide for adequate sunlight access, natural ventilation and to control the bulk and scale of buildings. Where building depths exceed 18 metres satisfactory daylight and natural ventilation should be demonstrated. The proposal provides building depths ranging between 27 metres (top most level) to 47 metres (Level 1), however a typical floor has a maximum building depth ranging between 34.5 metres to 39.75 metres (Figure 5), approximately double the maximum depth suggested by the RFDC and ADG.



Figure 5: Block 1 Level 10 Floor Plan

The applicant considers that overall building depth is acceptable as the proposal has been designed to locate habitable rooms within 6 to 8 metres of the façade, with an average apartment depth of 7.15 metres. The applicant has also identified other developments within Central Park (Blocks 2 and 8) and the CBD (Regents Place Tower) having large floor plates and in which it considers that solar access and cross ventilation is acceptable. The Department notes that the large building depth is in part due to the Block 1 envelope having been originally designed to accommodate a commercial building. In the Department’s assessment of the previous modification to allow the use of Block 1 for residential purposes, it was noted that the future building would have similar dimensions to the adjoining development to the east (Block 2) which also exceeded the RFDC recommendations for building depth. The Department considered that any future building should be similarly articulated (as Block 2) and apartments well designed to ensure occupants are provided with a good level of amenity.

39.75m

34m

39.75m

24m

14m

24m

17m

14

m



The Department acknowledges that the floor plates of all residential buildings in Central Park are large, and many exceed the RFDC recommendations in terms of overall depth. However, the buildings provide a high level of articulation and slots to offset overall mass. For example: • on a typical floor in Block 2, the building has a maximum depth of 34 metres (shown in red

on Figure 6), but with articulation and slots, has internal depths of 14.5 to 16 metres (shown in blue on Figure 6), consistent with the RFDC recommendation; and

• on a typical floor in Block 8, the building has a maximum depth of 40 metres (shown in red on Figure 7), however as the floor plate is highly articulated and includes seven slots, most internal depths are between 8 and 15 metres (shown in blue on Figure 7). Although one area has a depth of 27 metres, the extensive articulation and use of multiple slots ensures the building achieves a good level of internal amenity overall.

Figure 6: Block 2 Level 10 Floor Plan

Figure 7: Block 8 Level 3-7 Floor Plan

15m

32.5m

33m

28m

28.5m

34m

25m

14.5

m

16m

15.5

m

15m

16

m

40m

35m

39m

15m

9.5m

12

m

13m

8m

14m

15.5m

27m



The proposal for Block 1 also incorporates slots and articulation, but not to the same extent so that effective maximum internal depth in this case is 14 – 24 metres (Figure 5). The Department agrees with Council that the western portion of the building, where internal building depths are up to 24 metres, could be significantly improved through the introduction of an additional slot, breaking up the façade similarly to the eastern portion of the building. The replacement of a single slot on the western façade with two of equal size would result in direct benefits to residential amenity including: • increase in corner apartments (from 10 to 12 on a typical level); • reduction in single aspect apartments (from 8 to 4 on a typical level depending on the final

internal layout of apartments) • increase in cross-ventilated apartments (from 10 to 12 on a typical level); and • access to light at both ends of internal circulation corridors. One way to achieve this change would be to mirror the apartment layout on the eastern façade of the building and apply this to the western facade. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate this approach for a typical layout (Level 4 to 15). A similar approach is recommended for Levels 3 and Levels 16 to 18. The recommended changes reduce internal depths so that most parts of the building have a dimension of 14 metres, and no more than 17 metres, achieving a greater degree of consistency with the intent of the building depth recommendations of the RFDC. This arrangement results in improvements to residential amenity including: • improved solar access and natural light (Section 5.3.4) • improved cross-flow ventilation (Section 5.3.5); and • improved light and ventilation to the common circulation areas (Section 5.3.12).



Figure 8: Proposed Typical Floor Plan Levels 4 – 15 (Source: Applicant’s updated RtS) Figure 9: Potential modified floor plate for Levels 4 – 15 incorporating 4-slot arrangement Apartments 6-11 recommended to be deleted outlined in red and replaced Achieved by deleting Apartments 6-11 on each level and replacing with mirror of apartments 1-2 and 17-18, with minor with mirror image of apartments outlined in purple. adjustments to floor plate as necessary. Note: other recommended modifications to dual key apartments or balcony sizes not shown.

mirror reverse

mirror reverse



5.3.3. Dual Key Apartments Dual key apartments are designed to provide flexibility for future residents and can function as a single apartment or as two separate apartments with a single entry. Dual key apartments are provided across all residential blocks in Central Park. The proposal seeks approval for a total of 85 (two / three bedroom) dual key apartments (30% of apartments), which can be converted to 170 individual apartments (85 studio and 85 one / two bedroom). The RFDC does not address dual key apartments. The ADG acknowledges that dual key apartments provide flexibility in tenancy and housing choice however there is no guidance in relation to design or amenity for these types of apartments. Notwithstanding, the Department notes that the majority of the studio apartments have an internal floor area of 25m², which is significantly less than the minimum which would otherwise be required for studios under the RFDC (38.5m²) or the ADG (35m²). In its assessment of dual key apartments across the Central Park site, the Department has consistently ensured that dual key apartments: • are provided with private open space; and / or • are provided with cross flow ventilation; and / or • receive more than 2 hours of sunlight access; and / or • are provided with an outlook. In this case, all dual key apartments in Block 1 meet at least one of these criteria. However, noting the amenity concerns discussed in other sections of this report, the Department has given detailed consideration to the studios within each dual key apartment in terms of: • internal area; • internal layout; • private open space; • access to cross flow ventilation; • access to more than 2 hours of sunlight access; and • access to outlook / views. The Department is particularly concerned with 34 apartments (being 1A and 18A on levels 4 to 16, 12A at levels 4 to 9, and 5A and 6A on Level 3) for the following reasons: • 1A and 18A at levels 4 to 16 (Figure 10):

o receive no solar access and limited daylight access to the main living space; o include only a very narrow open space / loggia area with limited utility; and o have their primary outlook to the building slot and the adjoining apartment.

• 12A at levels 4 to 9 (Figure 10): o do not receive 2 hours of solar access, being overshadowed by the UTS building; o no cross ventilation; and o overlook a major arterial road with predominant views of the adjoining UTS building.

• 5A and 6A at level 3 (Figure 11): o receive no solar access and very limited daylight access to the main living space; o include only a very narrow open space area with limited utility; and o have poor outlook, primarily to the building slot and the adjoining apartment 1.8m away.

All other dual key studios either have access to larger and more versatile floor plans, good views, or 2 hours of solar access, and when all aspects of amenity are considered in conjunction, those apartments are considered to result in overall acceptable levels of amenity. The Department recommends a condition requiring that these poorly performing dual key apartments are converted to single key in order to improve their amenity. The conversion of these 34 dual key apartments into single key apartments results in a total of 51 dual key apartments in the development (18% of all apartments).



Figure 10: Proposed Levels 4-15 floor plan Figure 11: Proposed Level 3 floor plan Non-performing studio apartments in dual key apartments outlined in red Non-performing studio apartments in dual key apartments outlined in red

Lee Street Bus

Interchange

Units 1A and 18A Size: 25m² Loggia 3.1m² Layout: restricted (access via kitchen, no space for sofa) Cross Ventilation: No 2 hours solar: No Outlook: poor (predominantly across building slot to adjoining unit)

Unit 12A Size: 25m² Loggia 3.8m² Layout: poor (access via laundry then kitchen, no space for sofa) Cross Ventilation: No 2 hours solar: Levels 4-9 No Levels 10-17 Yes Outlook: fair (predominantly across Broadway to UTS building)

Units 5A and 6A Size: 36m² Balcony 3m² Layout: fair (includes space for sofa) Cross Ventilation: No 2 hours solar: No Outlook: Very Poor (predominantly to adjoining unit 1.8 metres away)

Lee Street Bus

Interchange



5.3.4. Solar access Solar access across the Central Park site was a key issue in the Department’s assessment of the original and subsequent modifications to the Concept Approval. In order to maintain a reasonable level of amenity for occupants of apartments and adjoining residents, higher building heights were positioned along the Broadway frontage to the north of the site while it was acknowledged that some of the blocks would be constrained in their ability to provide high levels of solar access. The Department has therefore carefully considered the amenity of apartments within Block 1 in the context of the benefits of providing increased residential density in a city-edge location, shadowing created by the siting of other tall buildings to the north (12 and 32 storey buildings on the UTS site), east (Block 2) and west (Block 4N), and the ability to maximise solar amenity through design. The RFDC and ADG recommend that at least 70% of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of two hours of solar access to living rooms and balconies between the hours of 9.00am and 3.00pm midwinter (June 21) in areas characterised by high density development such as Central Park. The proposal does not meet this recommendation as only 100 (36%) of the proposed 279 apartments achieve two hours of sunlight to both living rooms and balconies between the hours of 9.00am and 3.00pm midwinter. Further, only 108 (39%) apartments achieve two hours of solar access between extended hours of 7.30am and 4.30pm, mid winter (using the Cox-Tzannes method which has previously been accepted by the Department in the original Concept Approval and applications for individual blocks across Central Park). The level of solar access is significantly lower than the RFDC and ADG recommendations. The Department acknowledges that Block 1 is constrained in its ability to achieve solar access as a direct result of the overshadowing from neighbouring buildings. However, the size and configuration of the building floor plate, building depth and apartment configuration is also an important contributing factor in the overall level of solar access achieved to apartments. The Department therefore raised significant concerns with the proposal and requested that the applicant explore opportunities to maximise solar access through design. In response, the applicant maintained that any changes to the floorplate would not result in sizeable improvements for solar access. Instead the applicant provided further justification including, measuring the solar access against alternative guidelines which demonstrate that: • 134 (48%) apartments achieve two hours of solar access to either living rooms or bedrooms

between 9.00am and 3.00pm, mid-winter; • 151 (54%) apartments achieve two hours of solar access to either living rooms or bedrooms

between extended hours of 7.30am and 4.30pm mid-winter; and • approximately 136 (49%) apartments achieve adequate day light using the Green Star

methodology, which measures the internal daylight levels in a space on a cloudy day.

The Department notes that measuring solar access by the alternate methods proposed by the applicant, including solar access to both living rooms and bedrooms, even during extended hours at mid-winter, or measures of daylight access, still results in solar access that is well below the recommendations of the RFDC and ADG. The Department therefore concludes that by any measure, the solar access to the development is low. In order to improve solar access, Council strongly recommended that the lowest levels (up to level 9), should be converted to non-residential or non-permanent residential uses (eg. tourist and visitor accommodation) which would reduce the overall number of apartments within the development and increase the proportion of apartments which achieve two hours of solar access.



Notwithstanding, the Department supports residential use on Block 1 as the delivery of high density housing close to jobs, transport, and facilities is consistent with strategic planning objectives. It has therefore given careful consideration to the design of the building to ensure that all reasonable options have been pursued to balance the need to maximise solar access and amenity with the demand to maximise the residential density on the site. The Department acknowledges that apartments within the lowest levels of the development are most affected by shadowing of surrounding buildings and therefore achieve lower levels of solar access. The proposed modifications to the floor plate, including introduction of an additional slot in the western façade have not been measured in terms of solar access. Although the applicant contends that an additional slot would not result in measurable improvements to solar access, the Department is satisfied that, at a minimum, the recommended modifications would result in improved amenity in terms of daylight access to apartments including: • the removal of west facing single aspect apartments on each floor in favour of dual aspect

apartment with significantly greater opportunities for windows to be provided in dual elevations and at greater depth to each apartment to provide additional natural daylight throughout the apartments (as discussed in Section 5.3.2);

• conversion of dual key apartments to single key apartments providing a single dual aspect apartment in favour of two individual single aspect apartments improving natural daylight access into apartments (as discussed in Section 5.3.3).

Further, subject to the modifications recommended, the lowest levels of the building (levels 2 and 3) are considered to achieve a reasonable level of amenity, despite their limited sunlight access, as they would have: • generous open space and loggia areas, larger than provided at upper levels; • direct access to pool, gym and amenity space; • acceptable internal floor area and layouts exceeding the RFDC recommendations; and • acceptable outlook with all living rooms and open space oriented to the external face of the

building.

Apartments on levels 4 to 9 would also have acceptable internal floor area, internal layouts and outlook. The Department therefore concludes that the lower levels achieve acceptable levels of amenity. On this basis, and noting that the minimum 59,515m2 of non-residential floor space required by the Concept Approval will be provided in other blocks, including Block 4N which is currently under assessment, the Department supports the residential use of these levels. In conclusion, while acknowledging the constraints of the site and the difficulties in achieving solar access, the Department considers that the proposal, as refined in the RtS, does not adequately balance the need to maximise solar access with the demand for increased residential density on the site. However, the Department is satisfied that the recommended modifications to the floor plate and dual key apartments, in particular, substantially improves amenity and daylight access. In addition, the proposal provides opportunities for outlook and internal comfort factors such as appropriate apartment sizes, increased floor to ceiling heights and open plan living. When combined with the proposed modifications, the Department concludes that proposal achieves an overall reasonable level of amenity. Therefore, subject to the recommended modifications to improve daylight access and other aspects of internal amenity, the Department accepts that the level of solar access has been maximised where possible, and would be acceptable in the circumstances.



5.3.5. Cross flow ventilation The RFDC recommends that at least 60% of apartments should be naturally cross ventilated. The ADG recommends that at least 60% of apartments in the first nine storeys of the building are naturally cross ventilated (as apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated where balconies cannot be fully enclosed). Applying the RFDC measure of cross ventilation, 156 (56%) will be capable of being naturally cross ventilated. Critically however, if the proposed 85 dual key apartments are occupied separately, only 36% of all apartments will be capable of being naturally cross ventilated. Applying the ADG measure of cross ventilation, 70 (53%) of apartments on the first nine levels will be capable of being naturally cross ventilated. If dual key apartments are occupied separately, only 36% of apartments at these lower levels will be capable of being naturally cross-ventilated. The low level of cross ventilation is a direct result of the large floorplate, limited articulation in massing, incorporation of dual key apartments, and apartment layouts. Noting the other amenity concerns discussed in this report, the Department is not satisfied that the proposal has maximised opportunities for cross ventilation. The modifications to the floor plate recommended in Section 5.3.2 (including the addition of a fourth slot) and Section 5.3.3 (converting 34 dual key apartments to single key) would result in compliance with the RFDC / ADG rule of thumb and substantially improve cross ventilation on the site. Depending on the final internal layout and number of apartments, the Department estimates that approximately 72% of all apartments and 68% of apartments at the lowest 9 levels would be capable of being naturally cross ventilated. Further, if dual key apartments are all occupied separately, approximately 59% of all apartments would be capable of being naturally cross ventilated (56% of apartments at the lowest nine levels), which is a substantial improvement on the 36% achieved by the proposed development. Therefore, subject to the recommended modifications, the Department is of the view that adequate cross ventilation would be achieved on the site. 5.3.6. Single Aspect Apartments The RFDC recommends that a maximum of 10% of apartments have a single and south facing aspect and that all single aspect apartments be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window. The ADG recommends that single aspect west and south facing apartments are minimised and recommends that windows should be visible from any point in a habitable room. The proposal provides 8% of apartments that have a single aspect towards the south, which is consistent with the RFDC. However 19% of apartments are single aspect west facing. Further, many single aspect apartments have depths of up to 12 metres, with some bedrooms up to 9 metres from a window. In some cases, windows will not be visible from most points in the bedrooms. It is noted that the proportion of single aspect apartments in the development increases where dual key apartments are occupied separately, however the amenity of the dual key apartments has been considered in Section 5.3.3. Depending on the final internal layout of apartments, the Department also notes that the recommended modification to the floorplate would significantly reduce the number of single aspect wast facing apartments in favour of dual aspect apartments in line with the ADG recommendation to reduce single aspect west and south facing apartments.



5.3.7. Apartment size The RFDC and ADG recommend the following minimum internal and external apartment areas: Table 6: Recommended apartment sizes

Apartment type Recommended RFDC Internal area (min)

Recommended ADC Internal area (min)

Studio 38.5m2 35m2 One-bedroom 50-63.4m2 50m2 Two-bedroom 70-121m2 70m2 Three-bedroom 95-124m2 95m2

Of the 279 proposed apartments, only seven apartments do not meet the minimum size requirements of the RFDC and the ADG. In particular, five of the 1-bedroom apartments (16-02, 17-02, 17-04, 18-02 and 18-04) have sizes of 43m² to 49m² and fall short of the minimum 50m². Two of the two-bedroom apartments (17-03 and 18-03) are 59m², falling 11m² short of the minimum 70m². However, by converting to a four slot floor plan layout as recommended, five of these apartments would be deleted to accommodate the revised layout. The other two apartments only fall short by 1m². The Department considers that this marginal variation is acceptable and will not compromise the amenity of the one-bedroom apartments. 5.3.8. Building Separation The RFDC and ADG provide the following recommendations for building separation relevant to the proposal: • 24 metres should be provided between habitable rooms and balconies for buildings above

eight storeys in height; and • 13 metres should be provided between non-habitable rooms and habitable rooms and

balconies for buildings five to eight storeys in height. Key objectives of the building separation controls are to ensure adequate privacy and solar access is maintained between buildings. Above the podium the proposal would have a separation distance of: • 28 metres to the UTS building to the north (non-habitable); • 27.5 metres to Block 2 to the east (habitable); • 15 metres to the Brewery Building to the south (less than 8 storeys and non-habitable); and • 20.5 metres to the proposed envelope of Block 4N to the west (under SSD 6673) (habitable) The separation to the north, south and east exceeds the RFDC / ADG recommendations. The Department has considered the separation to the west below. Block 4N to the West Block 4N to the west (approved under SSD 6673) includes a hotel development on the eastern side of the building facing towards the subject site. The proposed building separation is 3.5 metres less than recommended by the RFDC / ADG. Notwithstanding, the Department considers that the separation is acceptable as: • hotel rooms are not occupied in the same manner as residential apartments, and no not

have the same privacy impacts as a residential dwelling (which unlike a hotel is designed for 24 hour daily use with cooking facilities, ample space for daily recreation and entertaining guests);

• the hotel rooms do not include any balconies or open space areas facing towards the subject site; and



• the overshadowing impacts arising from the building separation are less than what could be expected if Block 4N was developed for commercial purposes (as previously approved).

On this basis, the Department concludes that the building separation is acceptable. 5.3.9. Studies and Bedrooms The proposal includes 28 apartments with studies that are of a size (approximately 10m² to 13m²) that is equivalent to the size of a bedroom. The Department raised concerns as these rooms do not have access to a window for natural light or ventilation, resulting in unacceptably low levels of amenity for these rooms if they were occupied as bedrooms (Figure 13 and 14). The proponent has argued that the studies are not intended to be used as bedrooms, and that a larger study is required as most of these apartments have been designed as adaptable apartments, and in the ‘adaptable’ conversion, the bedroom wardrobe is relocated into the study to enable wheel chair access around the bed. Notwithstanding, the Department is concerned that the studies are both large in size and substantially enclosed which would allow easy conversion to a bedroom. In its consideration of studies in other residential developments (eg Darling Square) the Department concluded that the studies up to approximately 8m² in area were acceptable, as this size would not easily lend itself to use as a bedroom. The Department therefore recommends a condition requiring amendments to apartment layouts to ensure that studies without direct access to a window have a floor area of less than 8m². It is noted that most of the apartments with large studies would need to be redesigned in any case as a result of the recommended modifications to the floor plate discussed above. In relation to the applicant’s argument that large studies are required for adaptable apartment design, the Department notes that a compliant adaptable version of the apartments could be achieved by alternative designs, including reducing the study size and increasing the bedroom size so that the wardrobe did not have to be relocated. The Department also recommends a condition to ensure that the modified plans incorporate at least 10% of apartments as adaptable apartments as required.

Figure 13: Extract from Level 2 floor plan indicating oversize study capable of use as a bedroom



Figure 14: Extract from Lvl 4-17 floor plan indicating oversize study capable of use as a bedroom 5.3.10. Balconies and Loggias The RFDC recommends that primary balconies for all apartments should have a minimum depth of 2 metres, which can comfortably accommodate a table and two chairs, and that larger apartments should be generally capable of accommodating a table and four chairs (a width of 2.4 metres is recommended in that case). The ADG recommends that primary balconies for all apartments should have a minimum area of 8m² (one bedroom apartment), 10m² (two bedroom apartment) and 12m² (three bedroom apartment) and minimum depth of 2 metres (one and two bedroom apartments) or 2.5 metres (three bedroom apartments). Other than at the lowest and top levels, all primary balconies and loggias have a depth of 1.8 metres. Further, on a typical floor level, with the exception of two apartments, all primary balconies have sizes of between 5m² and 7m² and are therefore smaller than recommended by the ADG. Most secondary balconies, which become primary balconies when dual key apartments are separately occupied, are approximately 3.5m² in area. The applicant has argued that the balconies are capable of accommodating a table and chairs and have indicated potential furniture layouts on the plans. However the Department considers that a 1.8m deep balcony is insufficient to accommodate tables and chairs with space to comfortably manoeuvre around them. In conjunction with the other measures of amenity discussed in this report, including the limited communal open space provided on the site as discussed below, the narrow balconies result in an overall reduced level of residential amenity on the site. The Department therefore recommends a modification, requiring that all balconies and loggias with a depth of 1.8 metres be increased to a minimum depth of 2 metres. The Department considers that the additional 0.2 metres of depth should be gained from the internal living space of the apartments, rather than extending the balconies towards the street fronts, to maintain the integrity of the façade design of the building. The minor reduction of floor space within apartments (approximately 0.5m² – 1.0m²) is acceptable, noting that all but two apartments exceed the minimum size recommendations of the RFDC and ADG as discussed in Section 5.3.7. The increased balcony / loggia depth will also increase the overall size of each balcony, resulting in a greater degree of consistency with the recommendations of the ADG. With the incorporation of this modification, the Department concludes that apartments will be provided with acceptable areas of private open space.



5.3.11. Communal Open Space The RFDC and ADG recommend that 25-30% of the site be provided as communal open space, which equates to between 884 - 1060m2 for Block 1. Where this is unable to be achieved, the RFDC recommends that the proposal provides increased private open space and / or a contribution to public open space. The ADG also recommends that where communal open space cannot be provided at ground level, it is located on a podium or roof. The proposal includes a 216m² communal roof terrace at Level 16, a swimming pool area (338m²) and gym and yoga rooms (130m²) at Level 2, resulting in 684m² of communal facilities equivalent to 19% of the site area. Further, the site is directly adjacent to Chippendale Green, a 6,000m2 park provided by the applicant that is available for the use of residents, employees and the local community. In addition, with the modifications recommended to balconies as discussed above, the apartments will be provided with private open space generally in accordance with the objectives of the RFDC / ADG. In this context, the communal open space and facilities provided to residents is acceptable. 5.3.12. Circulation The RFDC and ADG recommend that a maximum of eight apartments (per floor) should be served by a single circulation core. The purpose of the circulation controls is to ensure safety and amenity of the circulation spaces as well as appropriate apartment and building design, noting that circulation space has a direct influence on apartment types, layout, building form, and articulation. Exceptions are permitted where developments can demonstrate a high level of amenity including sunlight and natural cross ventilation in apartments and high amenity to the common circulation spaces including ample daylight and natural ventilation and generous size corridors with common areas for seating. The proposal includes a single circulation core which would service 18-24 apartments on a typical floor (depending on the occupancy of dual key apartments). The proposal provides three slots which provide natural light at one end of each corridor and to the lift waiting area. Council and the Department have raised concerns with the single core arrangement, resulting in long paths of travel to the lifts, reduced security with a large population to each circulation space, poor amenity within the corridors, and that the arrangement lends itself to more single aspect apartments with associated internal amenity impacts. In response, the applicant has argued that the single core is acceptable as it will exceed industry benchmarks with an average waiting time for a lift of 29 seconds (industry benchmarks being 30 to 50 seconds) and the arrangement provides greater security by having a single access point which can be monitored by the concierge. Further, the applicant has argued that the 3 slot floor plan arrangement results in a superior outcome for the amenity of the circulation space, as it provides natural daylight and ventilation directly to the lift waiting area. The Department considers that the recommended changes to the floorplate as outlined in Section 5.3.2 will result in a better outcome for circulation as: • the recommended fourth slot would provide an additional point of natural daylight to the

circulation spaces, thereby improving overall amenity to this area, and • the minor impacts of lost natural light at the lift waiting area is more than justified by the

substantial improvements to internal residential amenity arising from the additional slot.

In addition, the conversion of dual key apartments to single key apartments (as outlined in Section 5.3.2) will reduce the number of apartments per typical level to 16 (20 if occupied separately). In conjunction with increased light to the corridors, with windows at both ends, the Department concludes that circulation would be acceptable.



5.3.13. Conclusion In summary, in order to improve the internal residential amenity of the building the following changes to the floor plans are recommended: • provision of an additional slot on the western elevation of the building between levels 3 – 18

(generally replicating the two slots provided on the eastern elevation with adjustments to the floor plates at Levels 16 to 18 to facilitate this change);

• conversion of the following 34 dual key apartments to single key apartments: o 1A and 18A on Levels 4 to 16, and o 12A at Levels 4 to 9; o 5A and 6A at Level 3

• increase the width of all 1.8 metre wide balconies and loggias to a minimum width of 2.0 metres, by converting internal floor space to balcony space;

• reduction in the size of studies to no greater than 8m² in area; and • where the above changes result in the deletion of adaptable apartments, new adaptable

apartments be incorporated into the revised plans. The applicant has argued that the introduction of an additional slot in the building would not result in any sizeable improvements to residential amenity and would result in reduced amenity for the circulation areas. As discussed in Section 5.3.12, the Department is of the view that any minor reduction in amenity as a result of less natural light at the lift waiting areas, would be more than offset by improvements to other parts of the circulation areas and would provide significant improvements to the internal residential amenity by: • improved ventilation (from 56% of apartments to approximately 72% of apartments being

cross ventilated depending on the final internal layout of apartments); • improved daylight access and daylight penetration to apartments (with the proportion of

single aspect apartments reduced from 44% to approximately 28% depending on final internal layout);

• improved outlook, with all apartments, including dual-key studios having their primary outlook from the external face of the building (rather than outlook to the internal building slots); and

• improved open space dimensions and utility. While the recommended modifications would result in a reduction in the overall development yield achievable on the site, the extent of those reductions is modest when considered in conjunction with the improvements to the identified amenity issues. It is likely that the recommended modifications would reduce the number of residential apartments by 26 (9%), but as a result of increased apartment sizes, would only result in a reduction in floor space of approximately 750m² (3% of overall floor space). Overall apartment mix would not alter substantially as a result of the recommendations. The recommended changes to the floorplate would also have a minor impact on the building envelope at the upper floor levels (levels 16-18). At these levels, proposed building massing differs between the eastern and western side of the building. In order to accommodate a fourth slot, massing at these levels would need to be altered (as shown in Figure 15) so that the floor plate on the western side of the building mirrored the eastern side. This would result in an expansion of the floorplate in some areas, and a reduction in the floorplate in others as shown in Figure 15. The Department notes that the area of additional building massing would remain inside the approved Concept Plan envelope, and would be offset by other areas of reduced massing at those levels, such that overall net massing and net shadowing impacts of the recommended modifications would not materially change, and would remain less than that permitted by the approved Concept Plan envelope. On this basis the Department concludes that no unacceptable impacts would arise from the recommended modifications.



Figure 15: Level 17 floor plan indicating additional area of floor plate (blue dashed) and reduced area of floor plate (yellow dashed) as a result of the recommended modifications. The Concept Plan envelope is shown in blue dash. 5.4. Consistency with Concept Approval The Concept Approval (MP 06_0171) for the site sets out a number of requirements and parameters for future applications in developing the former Carlton United Brewery site. In accordance with the transitional arrangements for the repeal of Part 3A, set out in Schedule 6 of the EP&A Act, a consent authority must not grant consent under Part 4 for a development unless it is satisfied that the development is ‘generally consistent’ with the terms of the approval of the Concept Plan. The Department has therefore assessed the proposal in accordance with the Concept Approval (incorporating amendments up to MOD 10). The Department’s assessment is set out in detail at Appendix C. Key relevant requirements are discussed in more detail below, relating to • gross floor area; • building envelope and height; • building design and form; and • design excellence.

5.4.1. Gross Floor Area Modification A1 of the Concept Approval outlines a maximum residential GFA of 195,985m² and a minimum non-residential GFA of 59,515m² across the Concept Plan site. A maximum of 24,313m² is permitted for Block 1.



The proposed GFA of 23,851m² complies with the maximum GFA permitted under the Concept Approval. The proposal seeks a residential GFA of 22,714m² and non-residential GFA of 1,137m². The applicant has demonstrated that the overall mix of residential and non-residential floor space across the Concept Plan site can be achieved. The changes recommended in Section 5.3 are estimated to reduce residential floor space by between 500m² - 750m², and will not impact on non-residential floor space, or compliance with the Concept Plan floor space requirements. 5.4.2. Building Envelope and Height MOD 10 to the Concept Approval has amended the envelope plans to reflect the additional massing proposed by this application, as shown in Figure 16. The proposed development complies with the amended envelopes, with one minor variation. The proposal has a maximum height to 79.80 AHD, which is 0.3 metres above the maximum overall permitted height of 79.50 AHD.

Figure 16: Additional massing to Block 1 envelope as approved by Mod 10 to the Concept

Plan shown in orange. The minor increase in height of 0.3 metres would result in no material impacts upon adjoining properties to the south and south-west and minimal impacts to overshadowing of the public domain. Further, despite the minor increase in height, overall the building massing is smaller than the previously approved commercial building on the site, and will result in less overshadowing impacts. The Department considers that the extent of the variation is therefore negligible in the context of the entire development and in this regard the proposal is considered generally consistent with the terms of the Concept Approval.



The Department notes that the recommended modifications to the floor plans discussed above in Section 5.3, will result in some minor changes to the proposed building envelope at the upper floor levels (Levels 16 – 18), However, the recommended modified building envelope would remain wholly within the approved concept plan envelope. 5.4.3. Building Design and Form Future Assessment Requirement B1 of the Concept Approval requires that the SSD application consider: • detailed resolution of setbacks and building separation between Block 1 and 2 and Block 1

and 4N; and • detailed resolution of the form and bulk of buildings fronting Broadway. Setbacks and Building Separation The previously approved Concept Plan envelopes and approved commercial buildings on Blocks 1 and 4N provide separation distances of 22 metres to Block 2, and 10 metres between Blocks 1 and 4N (except for where the pedestrian link was proposed which resulted in no building separation) (refer Figure 17).

Figure 17: Approved Broadway Elevation under MP 08_0253 (above). Areas of proposed

reduced building massing shown in yellow. Proposed Elevation shown below.



The current proposal provides a setback of 27.5 metres to Block 2 and 20 metres to Block 4N (refer Figure 17). The Department is satisfied that the proposed setbacks provide acceptable separation to adjoining buildings to provide a visual break in building massing along Broadway and to allow for views into the Central Park site. The Department has also considered building setbacks and separation in relation to residential amenity above in Section 5.3.8, and it was found that adequate separation is provided to Blocks 2 and 4N. Form and bulk of buildings fronting Broadway The proposed amendments to the Block 1 and 4 envelopes also result in significant changes to the Broadway streetscape, compared to the Concept Approval and the previously approved development on the site (Figures 17 and 18).

Figure 18: Photomontage showing Broadway elevation as approved (left) and proposed (right).

Figure 19: Proposed Broadway elevation

Block 1



The applicant contends that a significant reduction in building massing fronting Broadway is achieved by the deletion of the elevated pedestrian link between Blocks 1 and 4N and by setting back the tower from the east and western boundaries (as depicted in Figure 17). This results in improved building separation and a more articulated streetscape to Broadway. The building has been designed to maintain the fundamental concept of a podium, as approved by the Concept Plan. The podium, constructed to the ‘city datum line’ established by the Concept Plan (shown in Figure 17) ensures continuity and a clear visual relationship from Block 2 through to the heritage building on Block 4N, as well as ensuring that the podium retains a human scale. The proposed tower is also visually separated from the podium by recessed element, consistent with the approved building on Block 4N. The facade design incorporates a strong horizontal emphasis and a range of materials to articulate the façade and provide a visual relationship with adjoining development on Broadway (Figure 19). The Department concludes that the building’s design provides a suitable form with appropriate modulation and bulk as it presents to Broadway, including appropriate podium and tower elements to relate to surrounding development. Furthermore, the building incorporates appropriate façade materials and treatments to provide visual interest and a high quality contemporary appearance. On this basis the Department is satisfied the proposal meets the requirements of Future Assessment Requirement B1. 5.4.4. Design Excellence The proposal has been designed by the nominated architects for Block 1, being Foster and Partners with Peddle Thorpe and Walker, in accordance with the Statement of Commitments attached to the Concept Approval. The Department considers that overall the building will present a varied and interesting visual form, its elements unified by a shared palette of materials and architectural features, creating a cohesive and distinctive building which relates positively to surrounding development. The development includes public domain improvements that will improve the amenity and quality of the public domain. The Department is of the view that the proposed development exhibits a positive external design that will contribute to the Central Park precinct and the Broadway streetscape.

5.5. Other Bicycle parking Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 requires bicycle parking at the following rates: • one space per dwelling; • one space per ten dwellings for visitor parking ; • one space per 250m2 of retail GFA; and • two spaces plus 1 space per 100m2 over 100m2 for visitor spaces for the retail area. The proposal provides parking for 46 bicycles within the basement, and another 8 visitor bicycle parking spaces along the Chippendale Way frontage. In addition to the dedicated bicycle spaces, 256 residential storage cages are provided within the basement, each capable of storing a bicycle. TfNSW suggested that the quantum and security of bicycle parking should be increased, including opportunities to allow bicycles to be stored within the apartments. It also suggested that improvements that could be made to improve safety and accessibility of bicycle parking.



The Department considers that the provision of resident and retail bicycle parking, which includes dedicated spaces in the basement, as well as 256 residential storage cages is acceptable. The approach is consistent with other approvals on the site, and the Department is satisfied the proposal provides adequate amount of bicycle parking to meet the needs of future residents. The Department also notes that the spaces are located close to the end of journey facilities for retail employees, close to the lifts and separated from manoeuvring areas. However, as the basement is a secured area, visitors would not have ready access to this area. The Department considers that more readily accessible bicycle parking areas for visitors should be provided. Therefore a condition is recommended requiring the provision of visitor bicycle parking at ground level on the site at a rate of 1 space per 10 dwellings, in addition to 12 visitor spaces required for the retail uses. This would equate to approximately 30 additional spaces, (15 bicycle hoops) depending on final dwelling yield. Access Council raised an issue with the proposed access points to the basement which are located on Central Park Avenue (general access) and Abercrombie Street (service vehicle access). However the Department notes that no change is proposed to the access arrangements previously approved under the Concept Approval. Further the construction of the basement shell, including access points, does not form part of this application, but rather is part SSD6673 for the construction of Block 4N and the basement. The access arrangements sought in that application are consistent with the indicative plans submitted with the Block 1 application and the access arrangements approved under the Concept Approval. 5.6. Modification to the Block 1, 4N and Central Thermal Plant Project Approval MP08_0253 MOD 5 seeks to excise Blocks 1 and 4N from the approval, leaving only the Central Thermal Plant (CTP), with tri-generation gas engine and associated infrastructure under the Brewery Yard as remaining under that approval. Although the modification is a substantial variation from the original approval, it is necessary as Blocks 1 and 4N will now be constructed under the new SSD approvals, and the Central Thermal Plant is already under construction. The Department is satisfied that no adverse impacts arise from the proposed modification. To ensure the CTP is completed, the Department recommends a condition be included on the determinations, requiring that all works under MP08_0253 be completed prior to occupation of Block 1.



6. CONCLUSION The Department has assessed the merits of the proposal taking into consideration the issues raised in all submissions. The proposal is generally consistent with the Concept Approval, the objects of the EP&A Act and ESD principles. The proposal will deliver high density housing in an inner city location with excellent access to jobs, transport, open space, services and facilities consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the NSW Government’s NSW 2020 and A Plan for Growing Sydney. The key issue is the size and layout of the residential floor plate which has resulted in an overall unacceptable level of internal amenity, with low levels of solar access and cross ventilation, a high number of apartments per lift corridor, low amenity dual key studios, and limited size and dimensions of private open space. In consultation with Council, the Department has made a number of recommendations which seek to maximise amenity without significantly altering the fundamental design features of the proposal or its contribution to high density housing consistent with the Government’s strategic goals and objectives for the site. These modifications will result in measurable improvements to internal amenity via better cross ventilation, daylight access to apartments and within circulation corridors, the number of apartments off a core, outlook and open space and include: • the provision of an additional slot in the western façade of the building; • increase the depth of private open space areas; and • conversion of a number of poorly performing dual key apartments to single key apartments. Depending on the final design response, the modifications will likely result in a modest reduction in floor space (approximately 3%) and dwelling number yield (approximately 9% or up to 26 apartments). Although this may impact on the ability to maximise the residential and overall floor space across Central Park, the floor space allowance in the Concept Approval is provided as a maximum and it may not be reasonable for the applicant to expect that this may be achieved noting the changes to the land use distribution across Central Park over time. The Department also notes that, unlike commercial floor space, the uptake of residential development and the final dwelling yield is determined by a number of factors including the ability to achieve satisfactory levels of residential amenity. The Department therefore considers that the proposed modifications are reasonable in the circumstances and balance the desire for increased residential density on the site, with the need to provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents. The proposal will deliver a distinctive building which will relate positively to the high architectural standard of buildings in Central Park. The proposed height, form, materials and distinction between the podium and tower elements will complement the adjoining Block 2 and proposed Block 4N buildings delivering a cohesive streetscape presentation to Broadway. On this basis, the Department supports the proposal, subject to conditions.



APPENDIX A RELEVANT SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following supporting documents and supporting information to this assessment report can be found on the Department of Planning and Environment’s website as follows. 1. Environmental Assessment / Environmental Impact Statement

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6554 http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6449

2. Submissions

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6554 http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6449

3. Applicant’s Response to Submissions http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6554 http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6449

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6554








APPENDIX B CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS/ SEPPS

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS (EPIs) To satisfy the requirements of section 79C(a)(i) of the EP&A Act, this report includes references to the provisions of the environmental planning instruments that govern the carrying out of the project and have been taken into consideration in the environmental assessment of the project. Controls considered as part of the assessment of the proposal are: • State Environmental Planning Policy (State & Regional Development) 2011; • State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat

Development & accompanying Residential Flat Design Code; and • State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. COMPLIANCE WITH CONTROLS State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

Relevant Sections Consideration and Comments Complies?

3 Aims of Policy The aims of this Policy are as follows: (a) to identify development that is State significant development,

The proposed development is identified as SSD.

Yes

8 Declaration of State significant development: section 89C (1) Development is declared to be State significant development for the purposes of the Act if:

(a) the development on the land concerned is, by the operation of an environmental planning instrument, not permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the Act, and

(b) the development is specified in Schedule 1 or 2.

The proposed development is permissible with consent under Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2005. The site is specified in Schedule 2.

Yes

Schedule 2 State significant development —identified sites (Clause 8 (1)) 2 Development on specified sites Development that has a capital investment value of more than $10 million on land identified as being within any of the following sites on the State Significant Development Sites Map:.. (c) Broadway (CUB) Site,

The proposed development is within the identified Broadway (CUB) Site and has a capital investment value of $102 million.

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Schedule 3 of the SEPP requires traffic generating developments to be referred to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). RMS has provided comments on the proposed development and recommended conditions to be incorporated should the application be approved.



State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Remediation of the whole former CUB site was considered and approved as part of MP 07_0163 – Remediation and Transitional Works. The approved remediation works has been carried out. Standard conditions to manage any potential impacts of the development are recommended consistent with other previous developments on the site. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, including: • Residential Flat Design Code; and • Apartment Design Guide State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat developments. The Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) is closely linked to the principles of SEPP 65 and sets out best practice design principles for residential flat development. The Department has carried out a comprehensive review SEPP 65 including the replacement of the RFDC with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The changes to SEPP 65 and replacement of the RFDC facilitate an increase in the supply of well designed, affordable apartments, to introduce greater consistency in the adoption of basic design principles, and to encourage more innovative design. SEPP 65 Amendment 3 was endorsed on 19 June 2015 and commenced on 17 July 2015. The changes include saving provisions which confirm that the RFDC still applies for apartment development applications prior lodged prior to 19 June 2015. The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against the aims and objectives of SEPP 65 and endorsed SEPP 65. SEPP 65: Endorsed SEPP 65:

Department’s Response Current Principle Proposed Principle

1. Context 1. Context and Neighbourhood Character

The proposal is consistent with the use and built form requirements of the Concept Approval and with the existing and desired future character of the locality as discussed in Section 5.6. The proposal will not have any detrimental impacts on the amenity of existing and future adjoining development.

2. Scale

2. Built Form and Scale

The proposal is consistent with the building envelope parameters set by the Concept Approval (as modified). The scale of the development is compatible with existing developments adjoining the proposed building. Externally, the development is considered to present a high standard of architectural design and appearance. The development has an appropriate relationship with, and is sympathetic to adjoining development. However, internally, the scale of the building, including its large floor plate and building depth, results in a number of amenity concerns, as discussed in Section 5.3. Modifications have been recommended to address amenity concerns.

3. Built Form

4. Density 3. Density The building is considered to be of an appropriate density and scale consistent with the Concept Approval (refer to Appendix C).

5. Resource, Energy and Water Efficiency

4. Sustainability A BASIX certificate was provided with the proposal and demonstrates that the proposed development achieves compliance with the BASIX water, thermal



and energy efficiency targets. Further, Ecologically Sustainable Development principles have been incorporated into the proposal and the proposal will be considered under the Green Star Multi-Apartment Residential v1, Tools, achieving a minimum 5 Star Green Star rating.

6. Landscape 5. Landscape The proposal includes public domain improvements outside the frontages of the building. The landscaped design and ties into the overall landscaping of the Central Park precinct.

7. Amenity 6. Amenity Amenity is a key concern in the assessment of the application. Refer to detailed discussion in Section 5.3 of the report. Modifications are recommended to improve internal amenity.

8. Safety and Security 7. Safety The building has been designed to provide passive and active surveillance of the surrounding public domain. Security access is provided for pedestrian entry into the residential building and vehicular entry to the basement.

9. Social Dimensions and Housing Affordability

8. Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The proposal does not include affordable housing. However, the proposal provides a mix of apartment sizes ranging from studio to three bedrooms (including dual key apartments) to cater for a range of residents with varied incomes and needs.

10. Aesthetics

9. Architectural Expression

The proposal demonstrates a high standard of external architectural design through an effective palette of materials and finishes that appropriately articulate the building form. The architectural detail responds appropriately to the site’s context and improves the amenity of the existing public domain through the provision of a visually interesting contemporary building.

An assessment of the proposal against the RFDC best practice design principles is provided below:

RFDC Guideline Proposed Consistency? Part 1 Local Context

Building Depth

Between 10-18m is appropriate. If wider,

demonstrate how satisfactory daylighting and

natural ventilation is achieved.

• Between 34 to 39.75 metres • satisfactory daylighting and natural

ventilation is not achieved. No

Refer to Section 5.3.1

Building Separation (habitable rooms & balconies)

• 24m between habitable rooms/balconies;

• 18m between habitable / non-habitable rooms;

• 12m between non-habitable rooms

• 20.5 metres to Block 4N to the west; • 27.5 metres to Block 2 to the east; • 28 metres to UTS building to the north; • 15 metres to the Brewery Building to

the south

No Yes Yes Yes


Street Setbacks

Compatible with desired streetscape character

• The building is provided with appropriate setbacks Yes

Part 2 Site Design

Fences Provide privacy and

security Contribute to public domain

• No fencing proposed. Appropriate security and surveillance measures in place.

Yes

Communal Open Space

Communal open spaces to be 25-30% of site area

• 19% site area provided as communal facilities

No Refer to

Section 5.3.10 Private Open Space (ground

25m² with minimum width of 4m

• Not applicable as there are no apartments at ground level N/A



floor)

Part 3 Building Design

Apartment Size (min)

Studio = 38.5m² 1 bed = 50-63m² 2 bed= 70-90m²

3bed = 95-124m²

• Studio=39m² - 41m² • 1 bed = 43m² - 88m² • 2 bed = 59m² - 103m² • 3 bed =118m²

Most apartments

comply Refer to Section

5.3.6

Balcony Depth Min 2 metres • 1.8m No Refer to Section 5.3.9

Floor to ceiling heights ≥2.7metres • Residential: 2.7 metres Yes

Max No. of apartments off a circulation core

Max 8 apartments per lift core • 18 apartments per floor No Refer to

Section 5.3.11

Storage Studio and1 bed= 6m3

2 bed = 8m3

3 bed = 10m²

• Studio and1 bed= 6m3 • 2 bed = 8m3 • 3 bed = 10m²

Yes

Solar Access

70% of living rooms & private open space to

achieve 2hrs (for dense urban areas) sunlight

between 9am-3pm on 21 June (Winter solstice)

• 36% of apartments and associated open space achieve a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm.

No Refer to

Section 5.3.3

Natural Ventilation

Min 60% of apartments cross ventilated • 56% apartments cross ventilated

No


Kitchens with natural ventilation

Min 25% • All (100%) due to open plan living arrangement Yes

Single aspect apartments

Limit those with southerly aspect to no more than

10%

• 6.4% of apartments would be solely south facing aspect Yes

An assessment of the proposal against the ADG best practice design principles is provided below: ADG – Relevant Criteria Proposal Consistency? 3B Orientation • Building type/layouts respond to streetscape,

optimising solar access • Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is

minimised

• Layouts respond to streetscape but do not maximise solar access

• Overshadowing is acceptable

No Refer to Section 5.3.3

3C Public Domain Interface • Transition between public/private without

compromising security • Appropriate public domain amenity

• Active frontages provided, entrances easily identifiable

• Suitable public domain/landscaping provided

Yes

3D Communal and Public Open Space • minimum 25% of the site • well designed

• 19% of site area provided as internal and external communal faclities

• High standard of design, usability and safety

No Refer to

Section 5.8.4 Yes

3E Deep Soil Zones • Sites greater than 1,500m2, minimum 20% of

the site • No deep soil area provided. No Acceptable in



context of Concept Plan

approved envelopes

3F Visual Privacy Separation distances from buildings to boundary (double for internal site building separation) Over 25m (9+ storeys)

- 24 from habitable rooms - 18m from non-habitable rooms.

• 20.5 metres to Block 4N to the west; • 27.5 metres to Block 2 to the east; • 28 metres to UTS building to the

north; • 15 metres to the Brewery Building to

the south

No Refer to

Section 5.3.7

3G Pedestrian Access to Entries Entries address public domain and are easy to identify

Entries are well located, designed and easily identifiable

Yes

3J Bicycle and Car Parking • No car parking requirement for sites within

400m of a railway or light rail station • Parking is available for other modes of

transport • Visual and environmental impacts of at grade

or above ground car parking are minimised

Parking provided including: • 205 residential spaces; • 5 retail spaces; • 10 car share spaces; • 7 service vehicle spaces; • 9 motor cycle spaces; • 46 bicycle spaces; • 10 parking spaces for the use of

the Brewery Yard.

Yes

4A Apartment Mix • Provision of a range of apartment types and

sizes • Apartment mix is distributed to suitable

locations within the building.

• A variety of apartment sizes and types are provided.

Yes

4C Facades Building facades provided with visual interest and function expressed by design

The proposal achieves a high standard of architectural design to the facades.

Yes

4D Roof Design • Roof treatments are integrated into the

building design and positively respond to the street

• Opportunities to use roof space for accommodation and open space is maximised

• Roof design includes sustainability features

• The specific roof design features are proposed, but the building responds positively to the street

• Communal open space is provided in the form of a roof terrace.

• No sustainability features

Acceptable

4E Landscape Design • Landscape design is viable and sustainable • Landscape design contributes to streetscape

and amenity

• Landscaping includes a mixture of native and non-native plants.

• The design of the public domain is consistent with treatment of the surrounding streets

Yes

4F Planting on Structures • Building includes opportunity for planting on

structure • Appropriate soil profiles are provided and

plant growth is maximised (selection/maintenance)

• The building includes a communal, planted roof terrace and planting on the podium

• A range of soil depths are proposed from 300 to 800mm;

Yes

4G Universal Design

Universal Design Guidelines (20% of apartments) SSDA 6580 Safe and continuous levelled path to entrances Compliant

Yes



Accessible entry door with a minimum 820mm clear opening width and a step-free threshold

Compliant

Level landing area of 1200mm x 1200mm at the entrance door Compliant Internal doors with a minimum 820mm clear opening width and a step-free transition between surfaces

Compliant

Internal corridors with a minimum of 1000mm clear width. Compliant Step free shower recess Compliant Bathroom wall is reinforced for grab rails around the toilet, shower and basin

Compliant

A toilet is provided on the ground or entry level in multi-level apartments that provides: • minimum clear width of 900mm between walls • minimum clear circulation space forward of the toilet pan of 1200mm (excluding the door swing)

Compliant

4J Mixed Use • Mixed use development are provided in

appropriate locations and provide street activation and encourage pedestrian movement

• Residential floors are integrated within the development, safety and amenity is maximised.

• The development addresses the street and pedestrian thoroughfares and active frontages are provided

• Residential circulation areas are clearly defined and communal open space is provided.

Yes

4K Awning and Signage • Awnings are well located and complement

and integrate with the building • Signage responds to the context and design

streetscape character

• Signage zones comply with SEPP 64.

• Applications for signage within the signage zones will be submitted.

Yes

4L Solar and Daylight Access • Minimum of 70% of apartments’ living rooms

and private open spaces receive 3hrs direct sunlight between 9am-3pm in mid-winter

• In areas characterised by high densities, 2hrs of direct sunlight may be acceptable

• Maximum of 15% of apartments have no direct sunlight between 9am-3pm in mid-winter

• Shading and glare control is provided

• 36% of apartments and associated open space achieve a minimum of 2 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm. No


4M Common Circulation and Spaces • Natural ventilation is provided to all common

circulation spaces where possible • Common circulation spaces provide for

interaction between residents • Maximum 8 apartments off one core • Longer corridors are articulated

• Natural ventilation and light is provided to the residential internal corridor/circulation area.

• 18 apartments are located off each core.

• Long corridors are provided and not articulated.

No Refer to Section 5.3.11

4N Apartment Layout • Minimum apartment sizes

- Studio 35m2 - 1 bedroom 50m2 - 2 bedroom 70m2 - 3 bedroom 95m2

• Habitable room depth complies with appropriate ceiling height to room depth ratio

• A window should be visible from any point in a habitable room

• Living rooms have a minimum width of: - 3.6 metres for studio and one bed - 4 metres for 2 and 3 bed

• Apartment sizes include o Studio=39m² - 41m² o 1 bed = 43m² - 88m² o 2 bed = 59m² - 103m² o 3 bed =118m²

• Not all apartments meet the ceiling height to room depth ratio.

• Numerous apartments include habitable rooms (bedrooms and studies) where a window is not visible from any point in the room.

• Rooms generally meet the minimum

No Refer to

Section 5.3.6



• Master bedroom have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms have 9m2

• Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobes)

• For open plan layouts, the kitchen is a maximum of 8 metres from a window

dimensions. • Bedrooms generally meet the

minimum dimensions. • kitchens are less than 8 metres from

a window in an open plan layout.

4O Ceiling Heights Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

- Habitable rooms 2.7 metres - Non-habitable rooms 2.4 metres

Ceiling heights meet or exceed the recommended minimums

Yes

4P Private Open Space and Balconies • Primary private open space and balconies are

appropriately located • Primary balconies are provided to all

apartments providing for: - 1 bedroom min area 8m2 min depth 2

metres - 2 bedroom min area 10m2 min depth 2

metres - 3 bedroom min area 12m2 min depth 2.5

metres • Primary balconies are integrated into

architectural form and detail of the building • Primary open space and balconies maximises

safety

• Balconies are provided to all apartments and are located in the most appropriate location for the apartment.

• Balcony sizes do not meet area and depth guidelines.

• All balconies are integrated into the architectural form/detail of the building.

• Balcony design avoids opportunities for climbing and falls.

No Refer to

Section 5.3.9

4Q Natural Ventilation • At least 60% of apartments are cross

ventilated • Overall building depth does not exceed 12-18

metres

• 56% of apartments are cross ventilated.

• Building depth between 34 – 39.75 metres

No Refer to

Sections 5.3.1 and

5.3.4 4R Storage • The following storage is required (with at least

50% located within the apartment): - Studio apartments 6m3 - 1 bedroom apartments 6m2 - 2 bedroom apartments 8m2 - 3 bedroom apartments 10m2

• Residential storage meets the minimum guidelines.

Yes

4S Acoustic Privacy and 4T Noise and Pollution • Noise transfer is minimised through the siting

of buildings and building layout and minimises external noise and pollution.

• Noise impacts are mitigated through internal apartment layout and acoustic treatments.

• Noise transfer is minimised through the appropriate layout of the building.

• Apartments are appropriately stacked and laid out to prevent noise transfer

Yes

4U Energy Efficiency • Development incorporates passive

environmental and solar design • The development meets BASIX

water, thermal and energy efficiency targets

Yes

4V Water Management and Conservation • Potable water use is minimised • Urban stormwater is treated on site before

being discharged to receiving waters • Flood management systems are integrated

into the site design

• Water efficient fittings and appliances will be installed.

• A Water Sensitive Urban Design strategy has been prepared for overall Central Park precinct.

Yes

4W Waste Management • Waste storage facilities are designed to • Waste storage is provided at Yes



minimise impacts on streetscape, building entry and residential amenity

• Safe and convenient source separation and recycling is provided

basement level in convenient locations.

• Separate waste and recycling containers will be provided and will be managed by the building manager.

4X Building Maintenance • Building design detail provides protection from

weathering • Systems and access enable ease of

maintenance • Material selection reduced ongoing

maintenance cost

• The building has been appropriately designed to allow ease of maintenance

• The materials are robust

Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 SEPP - BASIX aims to establish a scheme to encourage sustainable residential development across New South Wales. The current targets of BASIX for Residential Flat Buildings commenced on 1 July 2006. SEPP BASIX requires all new residential dwellings in NSW to meet the specified sustainability targets of a 20% reduction in energy use and 40% reduction in potable water. BASIX certificates have been submitted for the residential component of the building and indicate that Block 1 can satisfactorily meet the BASIX targets. Conditions are recommended requiring updated certificates following recommended modifications to the floor plans and that the proposal is to be carried out in accordance with the updated BASIX Certificates.



APPENDIX C COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONCEPT APPROVAL An assessment of the proposal against the relevant Approval requirements, Modifications and Future Assessment Requirements of the Concept Approval is provided below. Concept Approval Department Comment Approval Requirement A1 Operation and Commencement of Approval

linked to Planning Agreements 1. The Modified Affordable Housing Planning

Agreement between the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and Frasers Broadway Pty Limited entered into on 28 November 2008 in connection with the application for modification of the Concept Plan approval dated 9 February 2007, is to be performed by Frasers Broadway Pty Limited (its successors or assigns) in connection with the carrying out of the project to which the modified Concept Plan approval relates.

2. The planning agreement with the Minister for Planning must be executed within 6 months of the issuing of any Project Approval for works related to new buildings (other than development the subject of Project Application MP 09_0042).

1. The VPA between the Redfern-Waterloo

Authority and Frasers Broadway has been executed.

2. The VPA between Frasers Broadway and the Department has been executed.

Modifications A1 Gross Floor Area Controls

The Concept Plan is modified with regards to GFA as described by the provisions below (a) The Maximum GFA available for development

across the Subject Site is 255,500 square metres (b) The GFA for residential land uses on the site shall

not exceed 195,985m2 of the total GFA. (c) The GFA for non - residential land uses on the site

shall not be less than 59,515m2 of the total GFA. (d) The maximum GFA for the development parcels

approved as part of the Concept Plan are described below:

Block Total max GFA (sq metres)

Block 1 24,231 Block 4N 26,591 Block 4S 22,258 Block 4B (Brewery Yard) 3,898 Block 2 67,626 Block 3 11,043 Block 5A & 5B 28,316 Block 6 2,000 Block 7 1,000 Block 8 14,875 Block 9 26,598 Block 10 1,844 Block 11 25,220 Site Total 255,500

(e) Notwithstanding the above, any GFA that occurs from the development for the purposes of

The development: (a) does not exceed the site wide GFA

maximum (255,500m2); (b) does not exceed the site wide residential

GFA maximum (195,985m2); (c) is not less than the site wide non-

residential minimum (59,515m2); (d) does not exceed the maximum GFA for

the Block 1 development parcel; and (h) satisfies the requirements of the Concept

Approval, all design excellence provisions and environmental considerations

(as discussed in Section 5.4)



community facilities within the Main Park that Council will own and operate shall not be calculated towards the maximum GFA referred to in (a) above.

(f) To allow for minor variations the total GFA for each block shall not exceed the maximum GFA for each block referred to in the above table by more than 5%, however the total GFA for the site (255,500sq.m) shall not be exceeded.

(g) Any future land subdivision shall ensure covenants are placed on the title to limit the GFA for each block in accordance with (d) and (f).

(h) The maximum GFA identified above is subject to satisfying as part of future applications: (i) the requirements of this approval, (ii) all design excellence provisions, and (iii) environmental considerations.

A2 Gross Floor Area Calculations The Proponent is to provide surveyor endorsed A3 drawings with each future application that provide the following detailed information: (a) Show and number the included and excluded floor

area for each level (b) Show the breakdown and cumulative total for each

level of gross floor areas, and (c) Demonstrate the project is contained within the

approved building envelopes, and (d) Demonstrate that the design does not exceed the

maximum GFA permitted for each development parcel.

Sufficient information has been provided on the A3 drawings submitted with the application.

A3 Design excellence

(1) Design excellence shall be in accordance with the design excellence provisions outlined in the Concept Plan Modification documentation prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants + TCW Consulting Dated July 2008 (08084).

(2) If in the event the design excellence process identified in (1) above is not followed, the Proponent shall hold a design excellence competition for: (a) any development comprising the erection of a

building exceeding 55 metres in height, (b) any development of land exceeding 1,500

square metres in area, (c) for each “block” where this is not covered by

(a) or (b) above, or (d) building(s) not counted by (a) to (c) where

considered critical for the precinct. (3) The design competition brief(s) shall be approved

by the Director-General or his delegate. (4) The Director-General shall establish a design

review panel for the design excellence competition that will consider whether the proposed development exhibits design excellence only after having regard to the following matters: (a) whether a high standard of architectural

design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

(b) whether the form and external appearance of the building will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

(c) whether the building meets sustainable design

Concept Plan Modification documentation prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants + TCW Consulting Dated July 2008 provides that the design of Block 1 is to be undertaken by the nominated Architects for Block 1, being Foster and Partners with Peddle Thorpe and Walker. The proposal has been designed by the nominated architects and therefore complies.



principles in terms of sunlight, natural ventilation, wind, reflectivity, visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security and resource, energy and water efficiency,

(5) The design review panel shall also be utilised for any significant changes to the concept plan and be involved through construction to ensure design integrity is maintained.

(6) Approval of future applications may not be granted until such time as the relevant authority has obtain and taken into consideration the advice of the design review panel concerning the design quality of development on the site.

A4 Site Servicing

Emergency and service vehicles must have adequate access to and within the site and into proposed basement car parking areas.

Emergency and service vehicles access the site either through the internal road networks or from Abercrombie Street.

A5 Street Activation (1) The Concept Plan is modified to require that street

activation is maximised along the following roads: (a) Broadway, (b) Balfour Street, (c) Carlton, (d) Irving, (e) Kensington, (f) Tooth Avenue adjacent to Block 4 & Block 5 (g) Kent Road,

(2) For the purposes of maximising street activation, this shall involve (a) providing access into retail shops directly from

the pedestrian footpaths, (b) locating services and fire exits such that they

are located predominantly on streets other than those nominated in (1) above to the extent possible in meeting BCA requirements,

(c) commercial offices, entry lobbies to commercial offices or residential apartments only where they are not the predominant use along the frontage of a building or buildings contained within each Block facing the nominated street, and

(d) minimising the number of driveways and their widths and providing basement car access and servicing,

(e) in the case of heritage buildings, providing uses that assist in casual surveillance of the street and positively contribute to the retail character of the nominated street.

The proposal provides ground floor retail to activate the street frontages. In particular, the proposal includes: • access directly from pedestrian footpaths

to retail premises. • residential lobby access off Chippendale

Way; and • driveway provided to the basement car

parking and loading area off Central Park Avenue.

Future Assessment Requirements B1 Urban Design

Design issues to be resolved during future project applications on the subject site include: (1) – Not applicable to Block 1 (2) to (5) – Not applicable to Block 8 (6) Street Sections – Detailed resolution of all street

sections shall be determined as part of future project applications.

(7) Block 1 – Detailed resolution of setbacks and

The urban design of the building and compatibility having regard to the surrounding area and other adjoining buildings on the site is discussed in Section 5.4.3.



building separation of Block 1 to Blocks 2 and 4N shall be determined at future application stage.

(8) Block 1 and 4N – Detailed resolution of the form and bulk of the buildings fronting Broadway shall be determined at future application stage.

(9) – Not applicable to Block 1

B2 Main Park

(1) This provision applies to applications involving: (a) the design of Main Park; (b) the design layout for roads; and (c) the design for a building occupying Block 8.

(2) The proponent shall demonstrate with the application that:

(a) urban design and traffic measures will contribute to attracting residents west of the CUB Site to the Main Park, and

(b) the street and open space network will provide opportunities for access by residents south and east of the CUB Site into the Main Park.

The design of the retail uses on the ground floor maximise exposure to pedestrian paths from Broadway though the site towards the Main Park.

B3 Landscaping

Detailed landscape plan(s) are to be submitted with subsequent Project Applications, informed by principles set out in the Amended Landscape Masterplan and Landscape Concept Design Character dated 12 May 2008 prepared by Jeppe Aagaard Anderson + Turf Design Studio.

Landscape plans were submitted with the EIS and includes planting of street trees along footpaths and gardens on the rooftop communal terrace.

B5 Parking Rates

The Proponent shall demonstrate with each application that the proposed development provides on-site parking consistent with Part 5, Chapter 2 of Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2005, or car parking for the proposal shall not exceed a maximum of 2000 car parking spaces across the site, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed 201 residential and retail parking spaces comply with the requirements of Sydney LEP 2005. The proponent has provided side wide parking allocations and projections across the concept plan site which demonstrates that a total of 1832 parking spaces are expected to be provided, being less than the 2000 permitted by the Concept approval.

B7 Car Share

Details of future car share arrangements are to be submitted with future project applications, so that car share services are provided to residents.

Ten car share parking spaces are proposed within the basement of Block 1 .

B9 Infrastructure - Rail Future applications lodged by the Proponent for development on the Subject Site shall: (a) demonstrate that the detailed design of buildings is

consistent with RailCorp’s relevant guidelines for noise and vibration impacts, regardless of whether they are interim or draft;

(b) submit an electrolysis risk assessment prepared by a suitably qualified professional that identifies risk to the development from stray currents and measures that will be undertaken to control that risk;

(c) demonstrate that they have a Deed with RailCorp, or are in the process of seeking to enter into a Deed with RailCorp, concerning access to the rail corridor for any works, where relevant; and

The application was referred to Transport for NSW who raised no concerns with the proposal with regards to rail infrastructure.



(d) demonstrate that a suitable level of consultation with RailCorp has been undertaken.

B10 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Future application lodged by the Proponent for development on the subject site shall be in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

BASIX Certificates were received as part of the EIS that demonstrates the proposal complies with the requirements of SEPP (BASIX) 2004. A condition is recommended to submit details prior to issue of relevant Construction Certificate.

B11 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Future applications lodged by the Proponent for development on the subject site shall demonstrate that the provisions of SEPP 55 have been met.

This is discussed in Appendix B of this report.

B12 ESD and Sustainable Design

(1) A tri-generation facility and other leading ESD and WSUD measures are required as outlined in the revised Statement of Commitments. Details shall be provided with the Project Applications relating to residential, commercial or retail development.

(2) Future Project Applications for multi-apartment residential, commercial and retail development (including adaptable re-use of heritage buildings) shall achieve a minimum ‘Design’ and ‘As Built’ 5 Star Green Star rating utilising the ‘Multi Apartment Residential’, ‘Office’ or ‘Retail’ tools.

Where buildings are not eligible for an official Green Star Rating, using the above standard tools, buildings shall be designed in accordance with the principles of a 5 Star Green Star building. Evidence of the project’s ineligibility and its consistency with Green Star principles shall be provided with future relevant Project Applications.

The proposed development incorporates ESD initiatives and targets a 5 Star Green star rating for the development.

The Department further notes that the recommended changes to the floor plans discussed in Section 5.3 are likely to further improve the performance of the building, through improving cross-ventilation and access to natural light.

The Department recommends conditions requiring certification that a minimum ‘design’ 5 star green star rating us achieved prior to the issue of a construction certificate and a minimum ‘as built’ 5 star green star rating is achieved prior to occupation.

On this basis, the Department is satisfied that the proposal complies with the requirements of the Concept Approval, subject to conditions.

B13 Heritage and Archaeology

(1) An Interpretation Plan is to be submitted with the first Project Application for above ground development and is to include original streets within the landscaping of the park to ensure heritage is understood in the overall design.

(2) The City Datum line, is to be applied to all buildings across entire site to ensure an appropriate pedestrian / heritage scale is maintained at street level. Details are to be submitted at future project application stages.

N/A

The City Datum Line has been applied to the design of Block 1. Refer to discussion in Section 5.4.4.



APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

state significant development and modification …

Documents