|
Determination
Refusal
Pursuant to
Section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as
amended, Development Application No. DA2018/0547 for the alterations and additions
to the approved six storey mixed use development to provide an additional
level of residential accommodation to facilitate four additional apartments,
reconfiguration of the car park layout and changes to the rooftop area of
communal open space at 85-87 Railway Parade, Mortdale, is determined by refusal
for the following reasons:
1.
The proposed development fails to
satisfy the control and objectives of Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the
KLEP 2012 as the additional height and scale of the building will adversely
affect the character of development in the streetscape and the additional
height is out of scale and inconsistent with the scale and form of approved
developments in the area.
2.
The proposed increase in the scale of
the building is considered to be inconsistent with the existing character of
lower scale residential development located to the south, east and north east.
The relationship of the proposed development to the existing residential
development is considered to be poor and the transition is considered to be
unacceptable given the context and character of development in the street.
3.
The proposed development fails to
satisfy the control and objectives of Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) of the
KLEP 2012 as the additional floor space, its bulk, scale and mass is
inconsistent with recently approved development in the vicinity of the site.
The additional bulk and scale will be visually dominating given the prominent
corner location of the site and its elevated position. The massing of the
building, the elevated rooftop platform will be inconsistent with recently
approved development in the B2 zone.
4.
The proposed built form and the
additional scale of the building will be out of character with existing and
recently approved developments and does not reflect the desired future
character for development in the street. The development fails to consider
the topographical features of the site and does not step down to relate to
the natural slope of the land. The transition and interface of the building
to the lower scale residential developments to the east and south of the site
is considered to be unacceptable and unsympathetic with the form of these
neighbouring properties.
5.
The proposed development fails to
satisfy the design criteria of the SEPP 65, Part 4A-1 of the Apartment Design
Guide in respect to the provision of an adequate amount of solar access to
units. The provision of a new level will remove the skylights that included
on Level 6 (rooftop) of the proposed development and their removal will
adversely affect the internal amenity of the southern orientated living
spaces of Units 504 and 504.
6.
The proposed rooftop area of communal
open space fails to satisfy the provisions of SEPP 65, Part 3D-1 of the
Apartment Design Guide, in respect to the amount of communal open space and
the quality of this space. The actual principle useable area of open space
fails to satisfy the minimum 25% requirement as much of the area comprises of
planter boxes which renders a large proportion of this space unusable and not
functional for recreational purposes.
7.
The design and treatment of the
rooftop area of communal open space fails to satisfy the provisions of SEPP
65 and the design guidance of Part 4P (Planting on structures) of the ADG and
space is considered to be poor and has not been appropriately documented or
detailed.
8.
The proposal fails to satisfy the
provisions of to satisfy the provisions of SEPP 65, Part 4G of the Apartment
Design Guide, in respect to the amount of storage provided for the new
apartments.
9.
The proposed loading bay does not
satisfy the provisions of AS2890 and the KDCP as the space is too small.
Manoeuvring into and out of this space is also awkward and no swept paths
have been provided to ensure access to this space by vans and small rigid
vehicles (SRV’s) can be achieved.
10.
Car parking spaces C01, C02 and C09
are poorly located as they are sited within the access ramp which is an
unacceptable design solution.
11.
The proposal
fails to satisfy the objectives of Subsection 3.4 (Building Heights) of the
KDCP 2013 as the building adjoins a low scale R2 zone to the south, east and
north east and the scale of the proposal does not provide for an appropriate
transition of development to the east.
12.
The proposed
Clause 4.6 variations in respect to the height and floor space controls are
not considered to be well founded in this case as the design of the
development fails to satisfy the objectives of the planning controls
therefore failing to satisfy the provisions of Clause 4.6.
13.
The additional
height, scale and floor space proposed does not represent the desired future
character for development in the street and precinct and will adversely
affect the nature of existing development in the precinct.
14.
The proposed additional floor space, scale,
bulk and mass of the building is considered to be an overdevelopment of the
site and will establish an undesirable precedent in the area and will not be
in the public interest.
|
