Author Archives: SavingOurSkies

  • -
links

North Eveleigh – Urban Growth NSW applies for ‘ReZoning’ of NE area – Oct 2017

Tags : 

Oct 2017 – Urban Growth applies for Rezoning of the North Eveleigh West land area, proposing a new framework to facilitate an increase in existing building heights and FSR (Floor Space Ratio) to allow for up to 700 Dwellings on the 2.9 hectare land parcel adjacent to Carriageworks.

PLANNING NSW Link HERE

Purpose of study:

Investigate preparation of a new planning framework for the North Eveleigh West site, part of the Redfern – Waterloo Authority Sites State Significant Precinct (SSP), to facilitate an increase in the existing buildings heights and FSRs to allow development of up to 700 dwellings.

NSW Planning website “Study Requirements” can be found Here.

The declaration of this SSP is the mechanism used by Urban Growth NSW to reset the planning controls of the area. The current controls are set within the “State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005” under the RWA Redfern Waterloo Authority which permits:

 

Allowable Building Heights      – 10 STOREYS

Allowable Floor Space Ratio     – 2:1 

We know from prior UrbanGrowthNSW communications that they are pressing for building heights as large as 20 Storeys with an adjusted FSR of up to 6.1:1 for some of the proposed “Superlots”.

The Study Requirements document list the Key Requirements and studies that UGNSW must address to be able to potentially change the planning restrictions currently in place.

Next Steps:

Once a final proposal that addresses all of the study requirements is lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment, this proposal will be publicly exhibited and the community will be invited to make formal submissions. The Department will consider all public submissions in assessing the proposal.

Stealing Our Skies will keep you updated with developments on this regard.

Past SOS posts of interest:

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

North Eveleigh – March 2016 Plan – High Density Living and Open Space Provision – A Vibrant Community Heart?

Picking Holes in the Urban Growth NSW 2015 Concept Plan

If you wish to be included in future updates from this website send an email to wordpressATstealingourskiesDOTcom

 


  • -
screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-4-17-03-pm

Email Submission for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation – July 2017

Tags : 

Click on the above Link and Paste the below outline as a starting point to submit your comments and objections. Pls delete any points you do not agree with and feel free to reword any or all passages in your own words.

A council outline for making comments and objections can be found here.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/development-applications/comments-and-objections

NOTE : As per DA submission guidelines FULL NAME and ADDRESS must be supplied in the Context of the email.

—————————————————–Email Subject——————————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

———————————–Copy Paste Email Body Below as a starting point for your submission————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

Your Full Name

Your Full Address Line 1

Your Full Address Line 2

To the City Of Sydney,

Regarding DA Notification D/2016/1388 pls find below a list of objections, recommendations and comments.

Whilst supportive of the City of Sydney’s approach to the creation of more Affordable Housing stock, as a local resident of Darlington I strongly object to the proposed development application for the following reasons:

Objections and Recommendations:

Affordable Housing

  • The proposed Scape student accommodation is being developed under the Affordable Housing SEPP – under the guise of a boarding house. Developing under the banner of the AHSEPP allows the developer to  obtain special developer incentives such as increased allowable floorspace (20% more allowable rooms), reduced apartment sizes, reduced solar access provisions and reduced open space requirements. As such Scape must guarantee that the weekly rental prices reflect the affordable housing cost guidelines. Currently rooms of the same size in the Scape Abercrombie Street accommodation are being rented for between $500 and $569.00!!!! (Excluding optional extras) NOTE July 27 SCAPE Website has been updated to include $499 price for ‘Standard Studio’. I cannot see the difference between the Standard and Medium.
  • This is NOT affordable housing and should not be allowed to be built under the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP.

screen-shot-2017-07-22

Scape Website screen-shot-2017-07-22

Studio Size

  • The outline of the development (Addendum_SEE page 4) states that overall the proposed studios have increased in size but the majority of them, 133, have remained the same size of 15.08m2. 
  • (Addendum_SEE page 8) states 15.8m2 is the area of the standard studios yet page 19 states 15.08m2. Pls Clarify.
  • Approximately 68% of rooms are still too small in relation to the guidelines outlined in the Sydney DCP. Council has previously noted all rooms should be at least 16.9 m2 as prescribed in Sydney LEP 4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation guidelines.
    • Standard Studio – 133 rooms @ 15.08m2
    • Attick Studio – 10 rooms @ 15.4m2
  • There are conflicting statements in the documentation as to the actual room sizes and room configurations. (Addendum_SEE page 4 and page 19) More detail is required as to the actual config and position of rooms on plans.
  • (Addendum_SEE page 14) states that the room sizes are compliant with the ARHSEPP (Affordable rental Housing SEPP) which stipulates the rooms must be 12m2 minimum except the DA documentation fails to mention that this measurement excludes kitchen and bathroom facilities which based on the supplied design below would make it 11.5m2.  Page 44 – “Unit Sizes” also falsely states that the room sizes are compliant with the SEPP – “Further, the rooms comply with the minimum provisions under clause 29(2)(f) of the Affordable Housing SEPP”.
    The ARHSEPP states:

    • Clause 29 (f)  accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

      (i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger.

      screen-shot-2017-07-22-at-12-25-00-am

  • It should be noted the majority of the proposed studios are not much bigger that the minimum size set for NSW Correctional Facility Jail Cells.

Solar Access

  • The lower ground studios have quite worrying Solar Access issues. More details/plans are required to assess.
  • The DCP Specifies that at least one communal living room receives at least 3 hrs direct sunlight to 50% of the windows in midwinter between 9am and 3pm. The June 21 solar access diagrams (below) do not seem to show ‘full’ sunlight is achieved in the lower level courtyard adjoining the Common Lounge. Updated plans showing solar access to the common room in detail have been since provided but they dont match the original birdseye ones (see below). These ‘Suns Eye View’ solar plans have some very suspect shadow movements.  Additionally a common room skylight is mentioned in clause 29(2)c on (Addendum_SEE page 14)  but it cant be found on the plans provided.
  • screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-28-pmscreen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-46-pm
  • The DCP also specifies the communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The Solar access diagrams for this period show this is no where near the case.

Building Setback from Wilson street

  • The main bulk of the building along Wilson Street still has no setback and is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. A nil setback will make for a dangerous precedent in the area especially given the forthcoming development across the road for “North Eveleigh”.  As per 4.1.2 of the sydney LEP2012 Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.
  • The building still does not resonate with the surrounding street in terms of heritage considerations. Its bulk, height and in particular its materiality do not ‘speak’ with the area. The architectural design of having the facades divided horizontally to emulate the linear elements of the surrounding terrace buildings looks cheap and is not in keeping with the area. 
  • The plans also show a slight  ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor.

  • Setback should be at least 1.5m along the length of the property.

Parking and Vehicle Bay & Pedestrian Safety

  • No Onsite Parking Spaces are provided for employees or residents. Whilst we appreciate the push for all employees and residents to use bicycles or public transport it is an oversight to think that the entire future population will come without a car. No accommodation is provided for the manager/staff who are noted to be available 24hrs. This suggests shift work which may not be amenable to relying on public transport. More onsite parking should be made available as per the ARHSEPP guidelines.
  • The rollergated vehicle/service-bay at the rear of the property on Wilson Lane is too small for a standard utility van / small truck and also appears to have quite poor manoeuvrability space and access into the building. 
  • The service bay has a very dangerous pedestrian blind spot for cars/vans reversing out onto Wilson Lane, adjacent to th e second entry point for the proposed development.
  • It is noted on (Addendum_SEE page 10) that Loading for Servicing and Cleaning will occur via the primary entrance on Wilson Street. This should be what the incorporated service bay is for. With a large number of cyclists already using Wilson Street together with the added cycle traffic proposed by Scape is would seem very unwise to suggest servicing the development in this way from Wilson Street.

Acoustic Noise and Smoking Area

  • No designated smoking areas appear to have been considered in the plans. Recent reports from new Student Accommodation facilities in Abercrombie Street note students noisily congregating at the street entrance at night to smoke cigarettes and make late night phone calls. 

SEPP65 Compliance

  • The proposed building design must be considered for SEPP65 Compliance. The proposed room sizes, solar access figures and open space areas are currently non compliant under this code.
  • In rebutting the requirement for SEPP 65 Compliance (Addendum_SEE page 12) states that none of the student accommodation ‘studios’ are self contained yet all apartments have integrated bathroom and kitchen facilities.
  • (Addendum_SEE page 12) also mentions that Amendment no.3 of the SEPP includes an anomalous statement that could be read to the effect that student accommodation“. This statement appears incomplete, does not make sense and we could find no statements within the amendment that referenced or could be inferred as ‘student accommodation’.
  • The SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-amBoarding House Registration

  • The Scape development on Abercrombie Street has recently opened and is still not listed on the Boarding House register on the office of Fair Trading website. As the Scape development is using the Affordable Housing SEPP “Boarding House” provision it needs to be ensured that they are registered and thus eligible for local council inspections to ensure ongoing compliancy.  http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

The developments this company has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  These 15mofferings will, at best, be semi affordable housing stock.  It appears they are taking advantage of current government policy without any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it. (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward vulnerable international students). We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development. 


  • -
screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-4-17-03-pm

Resubmission of DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation – July 2017

Tags : 

Scape Student Accommodation architects, AJ&C, have resubmitted their revised plans to CoS with design amendments. Objections to the submission close 28 July 2017.

 

The main documents of interest can be found in the archived links below:

Basic Overview of Changes

  • Apartment/ studio units reduced in number from 231 to 218
  • 9 of the 40 trees to the left and right fringes of the property have been maintained
  • Property edges have been reworked to assist shadowing problems and privacy concerns to the surrounding properties noted in the original proposal.

Objections of the revised submission for the 35-47 Wilson Lane Development Application.

Affordable Housing

  • The proposed Scape student accommodation is being developed under the Affordable Housing SEPP – under the guise of a boarding house. Developing under the banner of the AHSEPP allows the developer to  obtain special developer incentives such as increased allowable floorspace (20% more allowable rooms), reduced apartment sizes, reduced solar access provisions and reduced open space requirements. As such Scape must guarantee that the weekly rental prices reflect the affordable housing cost guidelines. Currently rooms of the same size in the Scape Abercrombie Street accommodation are being rented for $569.00!!!! This is NOT affordable housing and should not be allowed to be built under the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP.

Studio Size

  • The outline of the development (Key Benefits page 4) states that overall the proposed studios have increased in size but the majority of them, 133, have remained the same size of 15.08m2. 
  • Page 8 of SoEE states 15.8m2 is the area of the standard studios yet page 19 states 15.08m2. Pls Clarify.
  • Approximately 68% of rooms are still too small in relation to the guidelines outlined in the Sydney DCP. Council has previously noted all rooms should be at least 16.9 m2 as prescribed in Sydney LEP 4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation guidelines.
    • Standard Studio – 133 rooms @ 15.08m2
    • Attick Studio – 10 rooms @ 15.4m2
  • There are conflicting statements in the documentation as to the actual room sizes and room configurations. (Ref SoEE page 5 and page 19) More detail is required as to the actual config and position of rooms on plans.
  • Page 14 of the SoEE states that it is compliant with the ARHSEPP (Affordable rental Housing SEPP) which states the rooms must be 12m2 minimum except that it fails to mention that the measurement excludes kitchen and bathroom facilities which based on the design would make it 11.5m2.  Page 44 – “Unit Sizes” also falsely states that the room sizes are compliant with the SEPP – “Further, the rooms comply with the minimum provisions under clause 29(2)(f) of the Affordable Housing SEPP”.
    It ARHSEPP states:

    • Clause 29 (f)  accommodation sizeif each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

      (i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger.

      screen-shot-2017-07-22-at-12-25-00-am

  • The majority of the proposed studios are not much bigger that the minimum size set for NSW Jail Cells.

Solar Access

  • The lower ground studios have very quite worrying Solar Access issues. More details/plans are required to assess.
  • The DCP Specifies that at least one communal living room receives at least 3 hrs direct sunlight to 50% of the windows in midwinter between 9am and 3pm. The June 21 solar access diagrams (here) do not seem to show ‘full’ sunlight is achieved in the lower level courtyard adjoining the Common Lounge. Updated plans showing solar access to the common room in detail have been since provided but they dont match the original birdseye ones (see below). Additionally a common room skylight is mentioned in clause 29(2)c on page 14 of this application document but it cant be found on the plans provided.
  • screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-28-pm screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-46-pm
  • The DCP also specifies the communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The Solar access diagrams for this period show this is no where near the case.

Building Setback from Wilson street

  • The main bulk of the building along Wilson Street still has no setback and is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. A nil setback will make for a dangerous precedent in the area especially given the forthcoming development across the road for “North Eveleigh”.  As per 4.1.2 of the sydney LEP2012 “Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.
  • The building still does not resonate with the surrounding street in terms of heritage considerations. Its bulk, height and in particular its materiality do not ‘speak’ with the area. The architectural design of having the facades divided horizontally to emulate the linear elements of the surrounding terrace buildings looks cheap and is not in keeping with the area. 
  • The plans also show a slight  ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor.

Parking and Vehicle Bay & Pedestrian Safety

  • No Onsite Parking Spaces are provided for employees or residents. Whilst we appreciate the push for all employees and residents to use bicycles or public transport it is an oversight to think that the entire future population will come without a car. No accommodation is provided for the manager/staff who are noted to be available 24hrs. This suggests shift work which may not be amenable to relying on public transport. More onsite parking should be made available.
  • The rollergated vehicle/service-bay at the rear of the property on Wilson Lane is too small for a standard utility van / small truck and also appears to have quite poor manoeuvrability space and access into the building. 
  • The service bay has a very dangerous pedestrian blind spot for cars/vans reversing out onto Wilson Lane.
  • It is noted on page 10 of this application Document that Loading for Servicing and Cleaning will occur via the primary entrance on Wilson Street. This should be what the incorporated service bay is for. With a large number of cyclists already using Wilson Street together with the added cycle traffic proposed by Scape is would seem very unwise to suggest servicing the development from Wilson Street.

Acoustic Measurements and Smoking Area

SEPP65 Compliance

  • The proposed building design must be considered for SEPP65 Compliance. The proposed room sizes, solar access figures and open space areas are currently non compliant under this code.
  • Page 12 of the SoEE also mentions that Amendment no.3 of the SEPPincludes an anomalous statement that could be read to the effect that student accommodation“. This statement appears incomplete, does not make sense and we could find no statements within the amendment that referenced or could be inferred as ‘student accommodation’.
  • The SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-amBoarding House Registration

  • The Scape development on Abercrombie Street has recently opened and is still not listed on the Boarding House register on the office of Fair Trading website. As the Scape development is using the Affordable Housing SEPP “Boarding House” provision it needs to be ensured that they are registered and thus eligible for local council inspections.    http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

 


  • -
screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-08-59-am

Wilson Street – Proposed Bicycle Lanes – Your Say

Tags : 

Have your say on the City of Sydney Website and view the plans for a new Cycle Way on Wilson Street.

PDF Plans can be found in the lower Right Hand side of the below Weblink.

http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/sydneycycleways

Take Part in the CoS Survey here:

http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/sydneycycleways/survey_tools/wilson-burren-survey

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-08-47-am

 

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-11-15-02-am

 

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-11-15-35-am

 

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-11-16-23-am

 

 


  • -
wipeb

New Central to Eveleigh Website – a more realistic North Eveleigh image comparison

Tags : 

The new C2E website has a new page for North Eveleigh. Mid way down the page is a current/proposed image comparison.

Use the slider underneath the image below to see a more realistic lensing of the ‘proposed’ image.

“North Eveleigh with view of the Historic Clothing Store, current and proposed”

Author Note – The buildings in this image are indicative of height, scale and massing. The look of them however is not representative of what is proposed.

A little more alarming compared to the super wide angle rendering provided…….. which as discussed here cheats the realistic height and massing of the proposal.

wipec

 


  • -
screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

Tags : 

17-11-2016

NSW Affordable Rental Housing Legislation

Commercially motivated ‘Boarding House’ DA application Loophole must be fixed

City of Sydney outlines development guidelines for Boarding Houses (including Student Accommodation) in the brochure ‘Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012’.This document describes the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as a State Government initiative that assists in the provision of affordable housing near employment areas as a way to provide a means to retain and provide low cost rental accommodation and social housing.

This letter outlines how for-profit commercial accommodation providers/developers are taking advantage of a loophole in the current Affordable Rental Housing legislation that allows for the creation of Student Accommodation stock under the guise of “boarding houses”. Completely in contrast to the social foundations of Affordable Housing legislation these operators are free to charge whatever they want to lodgers and regularly market these developments to international students.

A number of these new Student Accommodation assets are promoting ‘designer’ accommodation and come to market with a ‘designer’ price tag that is disadvantaging poorer students who will undoubtedly have to work more to afford such housing which in turn puts their studies in jeopardy.

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 (AHSEPP) offers developers of new rental affordable housing developments incentives and bonuses in the form of:

  • Increased Allowable Floor Space. Most enticingly, they can be built 20 per cent bigger than planning limits specify for other housing types in a local area.
  • Reduced allowable apartment sizes compared to what is normally allowed for Commercial apartment blocks. AHSEPP 16sqm VS SEPP65 32sqm for Studio Apartment.
  • Reduced Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Private Open Space requirements.
  • Reduced Car Parking requirements.
  • Reduced Solar Access provisions.
  • AND amongst others a provision that states the consenting local council must not refuse consent to an application that adheres to all the Controls set out in Part 2 Division 3 of the AHSEPP.

Whilst these provisions are valuable in making it easier for non-profit/community housing providers to create rental housing stock for those actually in need of Affordable Housing it is disgraceful that commercial developers can exploit these laxed planning controls and then not be subject to any restriction on rent charges compared to their community housing provider counterparts who must (acting under Part 2 Division 1 of the AHSEPP) set rents at around 75% of current Market Value.

One such student ‘boarding house’ development in Wilson Street, Darlington (currently in DA application with submissions closing Friday 18 November 2016) is a 231 room 5 Storey student accommodation residence proposed by a UK based student housing developer company. The company, who to date has targeted the luxury student accommodation market recently moved into the Australian market acquiring land in Melbourne and Brisbane totaling over 100 million dollars. The company’s Australian capital partner describes the growing asset class (student accommodation) as having “high foot traffic, very good returns and very positive yields.” They is now adding two more properties to thier portfolio in Darlington, Sydney.

It is clear that companies like this are using this loophole for their own benefit with no care for a socially responsible outcome that would provide rental stock to assist in NSW’s affordable housing crisis.

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-10-33-38-am

Amendments are required in the current legislation to put a stop to this blatant abuse of social policy.

Without claiming to be articulate in legislative phrasing I suggest the following amendments to the AHSEPP:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Part 2 New Affordable Rental Housing

Division 3 Boarding Houses

  • 29. Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(6) If for Student Accommodation, a consent authority must not refuse consent to a development to which this division applies if the applicant can provide sufficient resources outlining subsidised lodging fees of:

(a)No more than 30% of the student’s gross weekly earnings, OR

(b)Lodging Fees set at at least 30% off the median rental prices in the area for a similar space AND

(c)Outlining inclusive lodging charges of Electricity, Internet Data and Water.

  • 30B. Standards of Social Affordability

(1) Applicant must show proof of consultation with

(a) a social housing provider OR

(b) a local housing agency

OR to avoid confusion between the distinction of Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation the creation a new Division within the AHSEPP specifically for Student Accommodation which would outline the aforementioned measures when used in relation to Section 4.4 of Sydney DCP 2012 and the Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012.

 

References

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2009/364/part2/div4

Sydney DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/255316/5_WEB_Section4_DCP2012_060516.pdf

Boarding House Guidelines DCP 2012

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf

SUPRA – Submission for the Parliament of Australia Inquiry into Affordable Housing, March 2014

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6ed09f82-89c3-49f0-99ae-f125fb8fe419&subId=251701.

The growth of student accommodation as an asset class in Australia

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/414982/wealth+management/The+growth+of+student+accommodation+as+an+asset+class+in+Australia

Students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high- Nov 2016

http://londonstudent.coop/news/2016/10/25/students-refuse-give-accommodation-award-rent-high/


  • -
thisisourwilsonstreet

Support Material for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation

Tags : 

 

DA Submission Update – Supporting information.

Summary

The overt number of infractions in the planning controls, listed below, should warrant the ‘for-profit’ commercial accommodation applicant, Scape, to go back to the drawing board and re-present a design more amenable with the local conservation areas character. 

The justifications presented in the applicants “Statement of Environmental Effects” are loose in their attempt to partially ‘tick’ the boxes but at no point take a real consideration of the local color and character of the surrounding area. 

Infractions Summary:

  • Scape (a for-profit UK developer)  is not listed on the boarding house provider register
  • Building Height is over allowed Height
  • Storey Height is over allowed Height
  • Development is not in keeping with surrounding building setbacks
  • No On-Site Car Parking
  • Not enough Private Open Space provided
  • Not in Keeping with Minimum room size 
  • No Vehicular Access for Drop Off / Services / Deliveries
  • Removal off all 40 trees including 2 on the protected/vulnerable list
  • Not enough internal communal space provided
  • The Mansard style roof is NOT in keeping with surrounding terraces in our heritage conservation precinct.
  • Solar Access designs are incorrect for mid winter for communal open space, shadows on neighboring properties and proposed apartments on the other side of wilson street.
  • No onsite boarding house manager
  • No Motorcycle parking

Boarding House Register

The developer/applicant is not listed on the NSW Gov Fair Trading Website Boarding House Register.

However they are already building the Scape student housing “Boarding House” in Abercrombie Street. How is this possible?

http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

In Response to  Division 3 Boarding Houses Notes in RED

Division 3 Boarding houses

Part 3 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 only applies to boarding houses that were operating with lawful consent before 28 January 2000 (formerly subject to determination under SEPP 10). 

To my Knowledge this site was not registered “boarding house” prior to current day

Ref http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf   Jan2013

25   Definition

In this Division:

communal living room means a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or games room.

26   Land to which Division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:(a)  Zone R1 General Residential,  (b)  Zone R2 Low Density Residential,(c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,(d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential,(e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,(f)  Zone B2 Local Centre,(g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

27   Development to which Division applies

(1)  This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.(2)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.(3)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

29   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

(a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

(b)  if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:(i)  0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or(ii)  20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

FYI – Existing FSR for this site is 1.5:1 . All Surrounding residential terraces are 1.25.1

(2)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a)  building height
if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,
Proposed Height is up to 1.3 meters above Maximum Height Allowed.
(b)  landscaped area
if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,
Image on application shows planting along the footpath but a setback of Nil would not allow this.
Front Set Back of “NIL” is not in keeping with Surrounding Streetscape 
(c)  solar access
where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,
Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams are Incorrect.
Additionally as seen in the below diagram the proposed development will cast a 22 meter shadow across wilson street onto the proposed 2 storey Wilson street facing “North Eveleigh” residential apartments. We also doubt the winter Solar shadowing on the terrace to the left of the proposed development.

http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,18/2016.06.21/13:03/13.3

(d)  private open space
if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i)  one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,
Only 15 percent of Studios have a private balcony averaging in 2.5m2 in size

(ii)  if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation,
No on Site manager is provided for.

(e)  parking
if:(i)  in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
No Onsite Car Parking Spaces are provided for.
Loading, Servicing and Cleaning are assumed to occur from the Wilson Street frontage. CoS does not provide onstreet can parking permits for owners/ workers/residents of this style of development. 

Using Wilson Street general curbside parking as a service /drop-off area could be dangerous to the cyclist population and depending on the frequency of use will disrupt traffic during peak hours and during saturday farmers markets where traffic and parking is already under stress.

 (ii)  in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,
No Parking Spaces are provided for employees.
(f)  accommodation size
if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or
Around 11.8 sqm excluding Kitchen and Bathroom Facilities. See Below Sydney LEP Notes.

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

(3)  A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

(4)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

30   Standards for boarding houses

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

(a)  if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,

(b)  no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

(c)  no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers,

(d)  adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,

(e)  if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,
No Onsite Manager is planned

(f)    (Repealed)

(g)  if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,(h)  at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.
No Motorcycle Parking provided

(2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.

30A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

Although the Application attempts to show it the building is in keeping with the surrounding Heritage Conservation area the pictures below tell a resoundingly Different Story. 
thisisourwilsonstreet

rendering
The above image is quite deceptive in showing the proposed buildings relative height. See elevation image below.


elevation

Winter Solstice Diagrams show Full afternoon shadowing on the ground floor of the Wilson Street facing North Eveleigh  proposed apartments.
http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,20/2016.06.21/14:18/13.3
screen-shot-2016-11-13-at-3-27-00-pm
The Surrounding Building Height Limits along Wilson Street are 9 meters. Allowing an increase on the already allowed 12 meter limit is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape.
elevation2
The curved ‘Mansard’ roof does not fit into the surrounding conservation area which all use a 45 degree angled flat roof.  The application suggests that the mansard roof acts like the surrounding terraced roofs that house attics. Its implementation is being solely used to hide the illegal 4th floor and create more apartment space for the loft studios. 
The application also suggests that this style reflects the roof of the carriageworks building. There is no resemblance.

Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

In Response to  Sydney LEP 2012 Notes in RED

Height 4.1.1

Provisions

(1) Development is not to exceed the maximum number of storeys as shown on the Building height in storeys map. The maximum may only be achieved where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development:

(a) reinforces the existing and desired neighbourhood character;

Wilson street has an amazing heritage character. The proposed building in no way reinforces the character of the neighborhood. See above Image of Wilson St Character.

(b) is consistent with the character, scale and form of surrounding buildings in heritage conservation areas;

Unfortunately the DCP has an ill defined height and storey limit already over all other houses on this section of wilson street. It should not mean the development can take advantage of this.

The Proposed development is in a heritage conservation area and the proposed height does not relate to the existing neighbourhood character in terms of height in storeys and street frontage height in storeys.

(2) The street frontage height of a building must not exceed the maximum height shown for the street frontage on the Building street frontage height in storeys map.

It Does

Setbacks 4.1.2

Provisions

(1) Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback. See Above image of Wilson Street Character.

Proposal claims set back is in common with North Eveleigh Precinct Wilson Street facing apartments. The Below image (NorthEveleightSetback) shows this is not the case.

north_eveleigh_setback

(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback.

4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accomodation

4.4.1.2 Bedrooms

(1) The gross floor area of a bedroom is to be at least:

(a) 12sqm (including 1.5sqm required for wardrobe space);

plus (b) 4sqm when a second adult occupant is intended, which must be clearly shown on plans;

plus (c) 2.1sqm for any en suite, which must comprise a hand basin and toilet;

plus (d) 0.8sqm for any shower in the en suite;

plus (e) 1.1sqm for any laundry, which must comprise a wash tub and washing machine;

plus (f) 2sqm for any kitchenette, which must comprise a small fridge, cupboards and shelves and a microwave.

The Majority of “Typical Studio” and “Garden Studio” rooms are less than the required 16.9m2.

x 164 rooms Typical Studio with a GFA of 15.8m2  

x 16 rooms Typical Garden Studio with a GFA –  16.7m2 

4.4.1.4 Communal living areas and open space 

(1) Provide indoor communal living areas with a minimum area of 12.5sqm or 1.25sqm per resident and a width of 3 metres. The communal living area can include any dining area, but cannot include bedrooms, bathrooms, laundries, reception area, storage, kitchens, car parking, loading docks, driveways, clothes drying areas, corridors and the like.

Communal indoor living space with 231 residents would equate to a requirement of 289sqm. Only @ 215spm are available in the lower ground communal indoor area.

(2) Indoor communal living areas are to be located: (a) near commonly used spaces, such as kitchen, laundry, lobby entry area, or manager’s office, with transparent internal doors, to enable natural surveillance from resident circulation; (b) adjacent to the communal open space; (c) to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the windows during 9am and 3pm on 21 June;

(d) on each level of a multi-storey boarding house, where appropriate;

Communal indoor living space is only located on one floor of the 5 Floor development.

and (e) where they will have minimal impact on bedrooms and adjoining properties.

(3) Communal open space is to be provided with a minimum area of 20sqm and a minimum dimension of 3m.

(4) Communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June; (b) be provided at ground level in a courtyard or terrace area, where possible; (c) provide partial cover from weather; (d) incorporate soft or porous surfaces for 50% of the area; (e) be connected to communal indoor spaces, such as kitchens or living areas; (f) contain communal facilities such as barbecues, seating and pergolas where appropriate; and (g) be screened from adjoining properties and the public domain with plantings, such as a trellis with climbing vines.

(5) 30% of all bedrooms are to have access to private open space with a minimum area of 4sqm in the form of a balcony or terrace area.

NOTE only 15% of rooms have private balconies. Of the 29 apartments with a balcony 24 of those provide only 2.6m2 of private open space within the balcony area. Attempted justification of greater communal space does not justify the requirement for Private Open Space. 

(2) Each bedroom must have access to natural light, from a window or door with a minimum aggregate area of 10% of the floor area of the room. Skylights are not to be the sole source of light.

City of Sydney Boarding House Control Plan 2004

In Response to  CoS Boarding House Control Plan – Notes in RED

2.8 Car Parking

(c) Parking Exemptions

In certain circumstances, and dependent upon the size of the proposed Boarding House Council may consider parking provision less than that specified above based on the following:

(a)  traffic and on-street parking within the street is such that parking is not required and can be adequately catered for on- street;

No Additional Parking avaliable on Wilson Street. All “free”car spots are taken 24 hrs a day and the increase in Carriage Works program means it will only get busier. CoS currently advising on whether to implement 2hr parking along the carriagewroks side of Wilson Street.

(b)  on-site parking would unnecessarily impact on residential amenity;

Current building has 12 on site car spots that does not impact surrounding residents. 

(c)  all aspects of pedestrian safety have been satisfactorily addressed in terms of access to and from the premises.

 


  • -
rendering

Email Submission for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation

Tags : 

Click on the above Link and Paste the below outline as a starting point to submit your comments and objections. Pls delete any points you do not agree with and feel free to reword any or all passages in your own words.

A council outline for making comments and objections can be found here.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/development-applications/comments-and-objections

NOTE : As per DA submission guidelines FULL NAME and ADDRESS must be supplied in the Context of the email.

———————————–Copy Paste Below as a starting point for your submission——————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

Your Full Name

Your Full Address Line 1

Your Full Address Line 2

To the City Of Sydney,

Regarding DA Notification D/2016/1388 pls find below a list of objections, recommendations and comments.

Whilst supportive of the City of Sydney’s approach to the creation of more Affordable Housing stock, as a local resident of Darlington I strongly object to the proposed development application for the following reasons:

Objections and Recommendations:

  • I object to the proposed 4 Storey building height and demand that the development maintains the 3 storey building height limit as set out in the City of Sydney Development Planning Controls 2012.  All surrounding residences along Wilson street between Golden Grove Street and Shepherd Street already have a 9 meter (2 storey) Building Height Limit which in itself makes this over-massed proposal not fit within the surrounding street scape. The image provided in the elevation diagram shows that the built form and massing of this proposal is completely out of character with surrounding residences.

screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

  • I object to the application seeking in increase in allowable height from 12 meters to 13.3 meters based on the fact that 12 meters is already higher than allowable either side of the surrounding terraces (9meters) and that this together with the other objections herein will result in an undesirable result for the streetscape.
  • I demand that the applicants ‘Scape’ must outline their Market and Subsidised rental pricing for the proposed ‘mini’ studio style apartments to ensure that it actually qualifies under the guise of Affordable Housing. 
  • I propose that the SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment “Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-am

  • I object to the proposal being cloaked as a “Boarding House” allowing it to use the laxed Affordable Housing / Boarding House provisions in current legislature. Classification as a “Boarding House” automatically allows the proposal to gain a ‘bonus’ 0.5 FSR. Due to the proposed maximising of all provisions in terms of Massing, Building Heights, FSR, Density, reduced Setbacks, Reduced Solar Access provisions , I demand that the Floor Space Ratio to be retained at 1.5:1. The rest of Wilson Street between Golden Grove St and Shepherd Street is defined as 1.25:1. 
  • I demand a DA notice to be placed on public display both on Wilson Street and Wilson Lane. (It currently resides in a little noticed stairwell of the existing building!) Of note some residents of the current building have not been notified of the proposed application.
  • I object to the proposed setback provision of ‘nil’ along Wilson Street and demand that the Wilson Street frontage is set back at least 2 meters as the plans are not consistent and do not respond to the surrounding character of Wilson Street or the UGNSW proposed 2 Storey apartments on the other side of Wilson Street (North Eveleigh). All houses to the left and the majority of houses to the right of the development site are set back between 1.5 and 4 meters.
  • I object to the development incorporating ‘nil’ active edges setback even though their ‘renderings’ show low shrub planting all along the Wilson Street footpath (which has a nil setback).

rendering

  • I object to the removal of all 40 on-site tress and demand the applicants to find a way to retain the trees that are listed as Vulnerable and Endangered (tree no 17 and 35). (The Arboricultural Report shows 11 trees with ‘HIGH’ retention value)
  • I object that development deems itself exempt from Sydney LEP 2012 guidelines as it intends to remove 40 onsite trees, some of which will require permits and 11 of which are deemed ‘High Retention’ value.  Part 3.1 (5)  To be exempt development, the development must: (b)  not involve the removal or pruning of a tree or other vegetation that requires a permit or development consent for removal or pruning, unless that removal or pruning is undertaken in accordance with a permit or development consent.

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-1-48-53-pm

  • Parking requirements – AHSEPP requires  0.2 car spaces per boarding room;  “At least one parking space provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on the site”. Whilst the application encourages a nill use of vehicles I believe an area within the development boundary should be designated for vehicular access of Services / Delivery / Dropoffs. No area is currently allocated.
  • I recommend that as per council requirements all owners, tenants and occupiers of this building are advised that it is the Policy of Council that they are not eligible to participate in any existing or proposed Council on-street resident parking schemes.
  • I recommend that the applicants amend the proposed 10pm lockout of rooftop area to 9pm Sunday to Friday. Currently it is 10pm 7 Days.
  • I demand that Solar Access plans are re-presented as the Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams, in relation to the lower level communal open space, do not take into account the 6 m high rear wall and staircase along Wilson Lane to the lower level floor. This would add a 9 meter shadow at Midday June 21. 
  • Comment – The development needs to further demonstrate that the proposal is considerate of the heritage and aesthetic and community ethos of the street and neighbourhood.  The current design does not show visual respect to the surrounding area and does not have a positive impact on the streetscape. Whilst the current building is noted as “detracting” in the buildings contributions map, its surrounding open land with its beautiful tall trees does currently provide an sense of open space which the proposed development will completely REMOVE.
  • The developments this company (Scape) has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  It will at best be semi affordable housing stock for the 15m2 offerings. In Darlington this developer is taking advantage of current government policy to encourage affordable housing developments without any providing any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering boarding house style affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it. (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward international students). It appears obvious that Scape are acting with corporate interests in mind by insisting on corporate branding of their franchise on Wilson Street whilst using every trick in current legislation to cram as many micro-apartments onto this site. We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development.

 


  • -
screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

Wilson Street – Proposed DA for 5 Storey 231 Room Student Accommodation opposite CarriageWorks

Tags : 

Proposal for 5 Storey Student Accommodation ‘Boarding House’ with 231 rooms

25-47 Wilson Lane (260 – 314 Wilson Street)

rendering

 

Applicant – Scape  (UK based)

http://www.scapeliving.com/sydney

screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

DA Application – Outline

https://online.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DA/IndividualApplication?tpklapappl=1274029

Proposed Building

Site Area   2583m2

FSR   2:1  (per application)

GFA 5166m2 (per application)

Rooms 231

Floors   5 Storeys (1 underground) -SydneyDCP2012 only allows 3 Storeys

Height 13.2 meters

Purpose Student Accommodation

BCA Building Class 3

Notes of interest for surrounding residents:

  • SydneyDCP2012 only allows 3 Storeys for this block of land.
  • Main entry point will be from Wilson Street even though the DA address is stated as Wilson Lane.
  • They plan to remove all existing trees. This includes two trees on the protected tree list and 11 trees considered of ‘high retention value’.
  • Current design plans show no setback from the Wilson Street footpath which is not in keeping with surrounding architecture. Plans also show an ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor. Developer’s claims that this is in keeping with plans for the proposed “North Eveleigh” Wilson St. facing Apartments are untrue as that proposal stipulates a setback from the footpath.
  • Design renderings shows shrubs along Wilson St. frontage at ground level yet this is not possible without a setback.
  • No onsite Vehicle Parking is included in the plans. Drop Off, Vehicular Service and Delivery access points are not shown. Note – City of Sydney does allow street Car Parking permits for such developments.
  • Roof is not of a linear steeped design (flat 45 degree) in keeping with surrounding residences.
  • Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams, in relation to the communal open space, do not take into account the 6 m high rear wall and staircase along Wilson Lane to the lower level floor. This would add a 9 meter shadow at Midday June 21.
  • It will double the amount disruption due to bi-weekly rubbish collection necessary for the volume of waste created. (via Wilson Lane)
  • The Residential Development is cloaked within the application as being a ‘Boarding House’. This gives the developers planning privileges including: Increased Floor Space (increased allowable apartment numbers), Decreased Private Open Space, No onsite Car Parking, Smaller Studio Apartment sizes. Cloaked as a Boarding House the allowable floor space (FSR)  increases from 1.5:1 to 2.0:1.

Recommendations:

  • Demand the development remains 3 storeys as per City of Sydney Planning Controls.
  • Demand that Scape outline their Market and Subsidised rental pricing for the proposed ‘mini’ studio style apartments to ensure that it qualifies under the Affordable Housing and Boarding House Guidelines.
  • That the SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) NSW Planning and Environment “Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”
  • Demand that Floor Space Ratio to be retained at 1.5:1. The rest of Wilson Street between Golden Grove St and Shepherd Street is defined as 1.25:1. 
  • Demand a DA notice to be placed on public display both on Wilson Street and Wilson Lane. (It currently resides in a little moticed stairwell of the existing building!) Some residents of the current building have not been notified of the proposed application.
  • Demand that the Wilson Street frontage is set back at least 2 meters as plans are not consistent with the current character of Wilson Street or the proposed Urban Growth development on the other side of Wilson Street.
  • Find a way to retain the trees that are on the protected list (tree no 17 and 35). Arboricultural Report shows 11 trees with ‘HIGH’ retention value.
  • As per council requirements all owners, tenants and occupiers of this building are advised that it is the Policy of Council that they are not eligible to participate in any existing or proposed Council on-street resident parking schemes.
  • Amend the proposed 10pm lockout of rooftop area to 9pm Sunday to Friday. Currently 10pm 7 Days.
  • The development needs to demonstrate that the proposal is considerate of the heritage and aesthetic and community ethos of the street and neighbourhood.  The current design does not show visual respect to the surrounding area and does not have a positive impact on the streetscape.
  • Parking requirements – ARHSEPP requires  0.2 car spaces per boarding room;  At least one parking space provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on the site. This area can also be used for vehicular Services / Delivery / Dropoffs as no area is currently allocated.

The developments this company has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  It will at best be semi affordable housing stock for the 15m2 offerings. In Darlington these developers are taking advantage of current government policy to encourage affordable housing developments without any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering boarding house style affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward international students). We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development. 

The application is incomplete and lacks:-

    • Environmental impact statement
    • Design Verification Statement (required for residential building 3 or more storeys in height)
    • BASIX certificate  (required for new residential dwelling)
    • Construction management Plan
    • Outline of Section 94 Developer Contributions

Why does the application say “no” s the current land used for low cost accommodation as it is clearly being used at the moment at low cost to its inhabitants.

 

Submissions
Submissions must be received by council prior to the exhibition closing date. If you wish to make a submission please read the development comments and objections.

Siobhan Fox-Roberts

Viewing the original documents

You may view the original hard copy during the exhibition period by visiting any of the City’s Neighbourhood Service Centre.


  • -
FloorSpaceRatio Map

North Eveleigh update – 10 Sept 2016

Tags : 

North Eveleigh – application for proposed amendments to current planning policy for increase in Building Heights and increase in allowable Floor Space Ratio.

UGNSW are currently completing a number of the technical studies, including traffic modelling, to finalise the North Eveleigh proposal. UGNSW are also continuing their work to finalise the Urban Transformation Strategy to guide development of government owned land in the Central to Eveleigh area.

UGNSW hope to lodge a State Significant Development Application and proposed amendment to the relevant State Environmental Planning Policy with the Department of Planning and Environment later this year. It is assumed the changes will be to raise Building Height limits and allowed Floor Space Ratio. (FSR limits relate to how much Floor area can be built on a given land area)

Current Legislation allows for a maximum of 10 storeys and a Floor Space Ratio of 2:1. The UGNSW North Eveleigh Plans are aiming for 20 Storeys with a FSR of around 6:1.

More info here

The Department will coordinate the statutory exhibition and confirm its timing. As a minimum the proposal will be exhibited for 30 days.


  • -
North_Eveleigh_-_Wilson_Street

Wilson Street Frontages – 3 Storeys! – 15 June 2016

Tags : 

There is a new image on the C2E website showing Wilson Street frontages.

North_Eveleigh_-_Wilson_Street

Just what we feared – 3 storey buildings facing Wilson Street.

These must be 2 storey on Wilson Street. We have also told Urban Growth the roofs on these appts should have a 45 degree incline away from the street as seen on all the surrounding properties.

From Urban Growth website re scale:

  • tapering taller buildings down towards the edges of the site to reflect the scale of neighbouring buildings
  • incorporating characteristics of local historical buildings into building design
  • varying the height and form of buildings with podiums that reflect heights of existing industrial heritage buildings and to achieve a more human scale at street level.

It would be good for UG to show how these buildings present them selves to the Platform Appts.

Urban Growth will be creating the sites DCP (Development Controls Plans) which the eventual developers will have to comply to. The DCP applies restrictions to subsequent building proposals and as such we need to make sure these types of restrictions are added.

 


  • -
c2eMeeting

City of Sydney – C2E – Public Meeting – Wed 15 June 2016 – ATP – 6.30pm

Tags : 

The City of Sydney is concerned about current proposals by UrbanGrowth NSW for the redevelopment of the Central to Eveleigh precinct.

A public meeting will be held to discuss the future of the Central to Eveleigh precinct.

The Theatre, Bay 4
Australian Technology Park
2 Locomotive Street, Eveleigh

6.30pm to 8pm

Entry to The Theatre is via Bay 4.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/news-and-updates/featured-articles/central-to-eveleigh-strategy

c2eMeeting2


  • -
30mm Lens

City Of Sydney – Council discussing Central to Eveleigh – May 16 2016

Tags : 

CoS Council meeting Discuss Central to Eveleigh 

There were a few mentions relating to Urban Growths plans for Central to Evening in this months council meeting.

They are outlined in the smh article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clover-moore-alarmed-by-waterloo-apartment-plans-that-dwarf-singapore-20160516-gowfr0.html

Below are the council extracts.

Item 4.  Central to Eveleigh Update

From the Chief Executive Officer

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/255882/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM43.pdf

 

Item 12.  Notices of Motion

From Councilor Scott:

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/255890/160516_COUNCIL_ITEM12.pdf

It is resolved that Council:

  1. (A)  note:
    1. (i)  the significant increase in resident and visitor populations predicted for the Central to Eveleigh precinct; and
    2. (ii)  the continuing uncertainty surrounding UrbanGrowth’s development plans for the area; and
  2. (B)  request the Chief Executive Officer to:
    1. (i)  investigate the possibility of installing City wayfinding information and better lighting between Redfern Station and Carriageworks;
    2. (ii)  seek to work with Carriageworks and the State Government to investigate integrated ticketing for cultural and other events at the Central to Eveleigh precinct and a shared approach to arts and cultural services between the City, Carriageworks and UrbanGrowth; and
    3. (iii)  write to the CEO of UrbanGrowth and Transport for NSW expressing Council’s strong support for:

(a) better pedestrian links through the Central to Eveleigh site, in particular, a pedestrian link from Redfern Station to Carriageworks and a bridge from ATP to Carriageworks; and

(b) working collaboratively on a plan for affordable housing dwellings in the North Eveleigh precinct.


  • -
CoS_April2016

City of Sydney responds to North Eveleigh April 2016 Plans

Tags : 

City of Sydney response to Urban Growth on 2016 North Eveleigh Plans

April 27 2016

PDF available Here

Quick Overview

The City and UrbanGrowth have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding promoting agreed objectives and principles on major urban transformation projects. Despite the Memorandum, the dwelling targets and building heights at North Eveleigh have been developed independently by UrbanGrowth.

  • Affordable Housing – The Plans should commit to 12% of all housing, consistent with the 2008 plan approval.
  • Parks and Community Spaces – Urban Growth should clearly identify the area measured as part of the park, to allow an understanding of how the park has increased. The shape of the park could be further improved.
  • Connections – The pedestrian connection at Golden Grove should be re-instated. A clear strategy for the Corridoor Crossing should be identified if Urban Growth wish to implement this Key move from the Central to Eveleigh Vision.
  • Buildings – New Development should avoid overshadowing to the neighbouring properties. The development should be wind tunnel tested.

 

 

 


  • -
22mm 3D wilson Street

Wilson Street Apartment Plans ? – (April 2016)

Tags : 

To date we have not seen any renderings/artist impressions of the Wilson Street apartments in the North Eveleigh Plan.

What we Do Know

  • They are referred to as 3-4 storey Apartments.
  • They are currently slated to be built last, after the two superlots at the rear of the site. We should get them to be built at the same time to lower the time of construction which is currently estimated to finish in December 2020.
  • The latest cross section has almost 3 Storeys of the 4 storeys at Wilson Street level.  We were told in the April info sessions that it was TWO levels at Wilson St street level.
2016_CrossSection

2016 Plan – Elevation

  • The lower level is proposed for Retail. This is probably necessary as the solar access will be Null on the lower level.
  • We have asked for the roofs to be sloped to match in with the rest of the surrounding area.
  • They are to have two levels of underground Parking. (2008 approved plan)
  • Each of the two blocks will house approximately 60 residents each
EstimatedResidents

2015 Urban growth info board

  • There is a setback of what appears to be at least 1 meter from the current fence line
  • There is a 6 meter difference in height between the CarriageWorks Way level and Wilson Street.
2008_site Elevation

6 meter elevation difference bw Wilson Street and CarriageWorks Way – 2008 Site Elevation

  • The area for these apartments is quite small. The width of the blocks are only 10 meters (including passageways)
BuildingWidth-Wilson

Wilson Street Building Width 

What we Don’t Know

  • Where will the entrances be?
  • How will the underground Car Parking work off Carriageworks Way and how it will effect traffic on the two way thoroughfare?
  • How will the apartment blocks present to Wilson St?
  • How will the apartments blocks present to the existing Platform Apartments residents?
  • Will there be fences on Wilson Street?
  • Where will these residences sit within the price range of available Stock? Will they be some of the new “Reduced Cost Housing” stock?
  • Will they have balconies facing existing residents on Wilson Street?

We must push Urban Growth NSW for detailed information.

Saving Our Skies


  • 2
sightlines

Urban Growth now using Trees to measure building sightlines?

Tags : 

The 2008 Concept Plan Approval fixed the heights of buildings such that they were below a line of sight from the northern side of Wilson Street (Figure 1).

compareView

As seen above in the Nov 2016 plans Urban Growth sneakily tried to get around this by having the ‘bystanders’ sight line from the south side of Wilson Street. City of Sydney quickly picked up on this and ordered it to be addressed.

Now Urban Growth, in what may be a World First, is now using trees in their measurement of sightlines in their April 2016 Plans!  The Website Link Here – Minimising the Impacts of new buildings.

sightlines

Using imagery (like below left) to show the lovely mature trees covering the view of the 20 Storey buildings they failed to show the same view a few meters down Wilson Street where the trees definitely do not coverup the sightlines.

 

 


  • 1
3D_NE

In Response to Urban Growth Artists Impressions of the 20 storey buildings (April 2016)

Tags : 

The Old Trick of using Wide-Angle lenses to distort space, distance and size. 

The new images on the Urban Growth website (April 2016) show some very nice pictures outlining how unobtrusive the new 20 storey buildings could be.

Unfortunately they don’t represent reality as the stills are taken with very Wide Angle Lenses (estimated 18mm) .  Human vision rests somewhere between 35mm and 70mm, depending on the size of the sensor/film aperture.

Wide angle lenses, commonly used in real estate brochures to make rooms look more spacious than they are, distort imagery in the following ways:

  • They make objects further away appear a lot smaller
  • They have a wider horizontal field of view
  • This wider view can approximate our total peripheral vision but in doing so makes objects appear a lot smaller than in reality.
  • Open your phone camera and point it in front of you. If its a newish phone it will have a lens around 26mm. Even this lens is quite wide and whilst built to take panoramic happy snaps you can easily see the difference between it and your own human vision.

3D Scale Model of North Eveleigh

So below we take the same pictures, in very similar places, instead with lenses which more approximate the human vision field of view. With Google Maps, containing site elevations, as our Floor Plan we made a 3D model of the proposed North Eveleigh development and positioned the camera in similar places.

3D_NE

3D buildings recreated over Google Maps.

Comparison of Lenses

A good way of telling if an image has been taken with a wide angle lens is looking at how distorted the edges are. We start with the golden grove example.

Golden Grove

Looking at the Original website example for Golden Grove you can see how distorted the edges are. Replicating this in our 3D program with a few trees and similar 2 storey buildings and terraces we get the same ‘pinched’ effect with our 19mm lens.

Now a 3D render from the same spot, just in front of the Abercrombie/GoldenGrove roundabout, with a 50 mm Lens. Not so unobtrusive….

50mm lens

Golden Grove 50mm lens

CarriageWorks Way Entrance

This one is a little trickier as the artist has had to realign the 3d buildings so they appear straight with a process called UnLensDistort.

Now a 3D render from the same spot with a 26 mm Lens. Not so unobtrusive….

 

Enterance_3d_26mm

CarriageWorks Way 26mm lens

 

Wilson Street

This one was used as an example to show how the existing trees in the area hide the bad sightlines. More on that in another post.

I have moved our camera opposite the last terrace on Wilson adjacent to the public housing site just sold.

In the below render I have included the proposed 4 storey building along Wilson Street. (We really have to see plans for these apartments and whether they will be 2 storeys at Wilson Street and how they will react with the surrounding street scape. I have made them 3 storeys at wilson St which is good for the sight line but they are supposed to be two, Pity they added an extra level to the platform apartments)

22mm 3D wilson Street

22mm 3D wilson Street

 Clothing Store

This one is great, another unrealistic camera.

 

And the following render taken from the Iverys lane end of the park with a 44mm lens.

 

ClothingStore_44mm

Clothing Store 3D 44mm Lens

Urban Growth Artist Impressions (April 2016)

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Golden_Grove_Street_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Golden Grove

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Leamington_Ave_-_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Leamington Ave

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Podiums_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression View1

North_Eveleigh_West__-_Wilson_Street_Rev_C

Urban Growth Artist Impression Wilson Street

 


  • -
comparisons

North Eveleigh – March 2016 Plan – High Density Living and Open Space Provision – A Vibrant Community Heart?

Tags : 

High Density and Open Space Provision in North Eveleigh 2016 ?

Within the proposed high density North Eveleigh West precinct we have an expected number of around 1600 residents in the new 3.02 ha development area. (700 new apartments plus the existing 88 Platform Apartments = 788 * 2.2 residents per dwelling, in a plan that exceeds local controls for Building Height and Floor Space Ratio)

Referencing the below site comparisons it is VERY evident that the proposed 2016 North Eveleigh plan has the highest population density on the smallest parcel of land. How much Public Open Space is provided for this vibrant new neighbourhood?

The planned public open space park in the South West of the development is 0.35 ha.  Including unusable verges in the entryway  0.43 ha public open space offered ! 

2016Park

It should be noted the Urban Growth NSW continually over inflate the size of the Park. (as well as other misguiding numerics) Currently stated at 0.46 ha (including the entrance above the park which is technically open but in reality its just a pathway – the 2008 plan only included the physical .33 ha park in calculations) the Park size is also mentioned in Central to Eveleigh Documentation as 5,000 sq meters.  This is VERY concerning as the over inflated Open Space claims will obviously look more favourable to Authorities in their determinations. 

 

C2EPark - March Update

North Eveleigh Local Park stated as 5000m2 at C2E Update Meeting – March 31 2016

What is Open Space

NSW Dept of Planning states:

“Open space is the publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, nature conservation, passive outdoor enjoyment and public gatherings. This includes public parks, gardens, reserves, waterways, publicly owned forecourts and squares.”

Open Space is defined into 3 areas:

Regional Open Space (above 5 hectares) – are valued and visited by a broader catchment of people as well as the local community. e.g. Sydney Park

District Open Space (between 2 – 5 hectares) – are valued and visited primarily by people with the corridor providing facilities that include organised and unstructured sport and recreation activities. e.g. Victoria Park

Local Open Space (between 0.5 – 2 hectares) – provides a diversity of character and facilities that appeal to the local community at a neighbourhood level. A 400 metre walkable distance is used for Local Open Space. (8)  e.g. Hollis Park 

According to the Recreation and Open Space Planning Guidelines for Local Government (Department of Planning, 2010), the locally appropriate provision standard for recreational open space in Inner Urban areas within Metropolitan Sydney should be around 15 percent of an LGA’s (Local Government Area) share of non-industrial land (9% for Local/District Open Space and 6% for Regional Open Space) to ensure that there is a 1.5-hectare park within 1 kilometre of most dwellings and a 1000-square metre ‘pocket park’ within 400 metres of most dwellings to provide for neighbourhood needs.

This is great as it works for the current existing community but we are injecting 1600+ new residents into the area (more when North Eveleigh North (other side of carriage works) comes online. These percentage based Open Space measurements don’t take into account population DENSITY.

Urban Growth NSW have two new Pages on their Website about Density. They don’t really say anything specific but its nice that they are there…

What is Density Well Done

Density Design Principles

 

Site Comparisons 

Site Gross Area Hectares per 1000 People Population Density Open Space % Open Space Population OS m² per person
Central Park Broadway  5.8 ha  .28 ha per 1,000 population  431 people per hectare  0.8 ha  12%  2500  3.2m²
Victoria Park Zetland  24.4 ha  1.22 ha per 1,000 population  125 people per hectare  3.7 ha  15% 3060 12.0m²
Harold Park 10.6 ha ?  1.9 ha per 1,000 population ? 235 people per hectare ? 3.8 ha? 33 % ? 2500? 20 m² ?
Green Square  13.7 ha  0.20 ha per 1,000 population  490 people per hectare  1.4 ha  10% 6750 2.0m²
Rhodes West  46 ha  1.28 ha per 1,000 population  123 people per hectare  7.3 ha  16% 5680 12.8m²
North Eveleigh West  3.09 ha  .20 ha per 1,000 population  506 people per hectare  0.35 ha  11% 1600 2.1m²

The above shows an alarming trend in High Density – Low Area Developments that are Packing people into smaller areas and offering less Open Space. As an example South Australia legislates 12.5% of land is to be used for open space which relates to around 4ha per 1000 people in a lower Density development area of 35 ha. It does not make sense that this “percentage ratio” can be used in Higher Density developments. Some studies suggest that an increase in open space is required to compensate the increase in density with people having less private open space. (4)

 (Harold Park DCP specified a minimum of 25% to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space)

(Green Square DCP also specified a minimum of 25% of land to be used for public open space – excluding Private open space, although the above seems to contradict that)

(North Eveleigh 2008 Guidelines response to the Director Generals Report that recommended  25%-30% of land to be used for public open space(page 5).  

With the new 2016 Proposals we appear to have gone from 10m² per person to 2m² per person. Private Open Space within the 2 Superlots total 0.14 ha (thats 1400m²)

Some Background to Open Space Measurements

The relatively old metric used by NSW residential urban planners is to allow for 2.83 hectares of Open Space per 1000 residents within a development (1). The Density based benchmark benchmark takes into consideration that people in higher density dwellings need greater access and quality open space and public realm – their backyard is the public domain.

The standard of 2.83 hectares (7 acres) hectares of open space per 1000 population, which has been widely used in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia, dates back at least to the 1940s. 1975 and 1985 survey reports noted the widespread practice in NSW of dividing the 2.83 ha into 1.21 ha for ‘active’ open space and 1.6 ha into ‘passive’ open space. Even current NSW Open Space Audits reference this metric (7).

This benchmark, a globally adopted maxim originally conceived in the UK, has in recent years been described as outdated and unrealistic in the planning of our new high density city centres. In practice, provision has varied considerably from the traditional formula of 2.83 hectares per 1000 people – from a Inner Sydney median of 1.6 ha to 6.32 ha for some outer council areas (dominated by sports grounds). The use of such a numerical standard to determine adequate levels of open space is said by some to be no longer generally accepted as a satisfactory method of Planning for open space (developers), yet it remains a well used reference guide and Yardstick for the adequate provision of open space (5)(6).  As the alternative ‘needs based’ measures and metrics are somewhat ‘holistic’ and at best sketchy in terms of actual metrics we still see current references to the original method as they are quantifiable (2)(3).

The Sydney Section 94 Developer Contributions plan makes estimates 5.5m² being available per resident by 2020 (p83).

http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/city-of-sydney-development-contributions-plan-updates/documents

Proposed updates to the Plan in early 2016 (Currently under review) are looking to reduce this figure to 2.1m² for each resident. Until updates to the DCP are ratified the plans must reflect the current documents.

 

Addressing Population Growth and Density

In the report on population growth projections UGNSW have used their own statistical calculations to measure population growth which are overall much higher than the Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) 2011 report.  We can see from table 15 that compared to the “2036 DPE estimation” of around 1100 residents for the North Eveleigh West precinct Urban Growth NSW has been using the “2036 UGNSW High Scenario” of 1600 residents. The reasoning used was UG thought the 2011 census data was incorrect and instead of using a population of 51 700 in the study area they have increased the starting population to 59000.(page 22). NOTE – This conflicts with table 4 on page 33 which suggests 56700 population. Why is this? Its not really clear but one reason is that they probably have to find a way to pay for Central to Eveleigh and the more properties they can build the more economically Viable the development appears. 

table15

Table 13 below shows the overall potential population growth for the Study Area from 2011 to 2036 based on the predicted growth by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), and based on the low, medium and high development scenarios for the Central to Eveleigh project. (page 68)

 

table13NOTE 1 – “The City of Sydney is updating the Open Space & Recreation Needs Strategy 2006 and reviewing its Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006. The Council recently resolved that the Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs Study will be prepared by the end of 2015” (page 81)

NOTE 2 – As of April 12 2016 the UGNSW website still states “potential new residents” as bw 29,000 and 56,000. So although Urban Growth are telling us they are not furthering discussions on building heights the below seems to suggest there is flexibility in density depending on the outcome of the overall proposition.

NOTE 3 – This article on News.com.au predicts by 2030 54,000 people will call Green Square home.

WebsiteSnapshot

The DPE report also claims that the rise in single-person and couple-only households, as well as an ageing population, is driving the need for smaller dwellings. It also showed how the government would create housing diversity, which included studio or “granny flats”, smaller block sizes in suburbia, an increased number of townhouses and terraces and manor homes (four separately titled units within the same building). This is not the case with the Urban Growth Central to Eveleigh plan. “Let’s not just build tower blocks at extortionate prices, let’s build dwellings that Australians are happy to come home to.”

How do we get an acceptable result of Density and Open Space built to maintain a Vibrant Community?

The aim is to build communities where people want to live, not just build lots of 1 and 2 bedroom High Density rental stock. UG appears to be providing a market with specific customers in mind – ones without children.

The most sensible result would be to reduce the population density to a figure that is more appropriate to what the space can provide. The original plan of 8-12 Storeys which would manage a proposed population of around 800 residents was better. The 2016 plan increased the density by 20% to provide 600- 700 apartments (equating to an additional 1400 residents on top of the 200 in the Platform Apartments). The 20% increase was based on “population growth and site specific design opportunities“. (page42 UGNSW – North Eveleigh – Plan for a new neighbourhood 2015).

Reversing that would leave us with 1120 residents immediately making more open space.

Additionally the NSW Government could follow through with changes to legislation making it harder for property owners to to leave the 10,000 CBD premises vacant.

It is quite obvious that UGNSW is reluctant to change the Density and building heights in North Eveleigh as it creates a precedent for the forthcoming developments in the Central to Eveleigh tract. In followup Posts we will put the facts together to present to the minister for planning  (and the shadow minister) as Urban Growth have made it quite clear they are not moving on this.

The Report from Charles Sturt University offers some fantastic references to many recent case studies on open space consideration in High Density residential areas (4). The benefits of Open Space is obviously necessary to urban planning and is backed up by the 100’s of Australian and International Reports on the subject.  The benefits are generally outlined in Social, Economic and Environmental impacts.

 


 

REFERENCES

(1) Density Health Workshop Report NSW

(2) https://thebayssydney.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BaysPrecinctStrategicFrameworkReportVol1.pdf?2274ba&2274ba

(3) Sydney Open Space Report 2016

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/Sydney-Districts/~/media/7621E08C4AE24C9FBC4970D3438A4C9A.ashx

(4) Best Practice Open Space in Higher Density Developments (2011)

https://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Best%20Practice%20Open%20Space%20in%20Higher%20Denisty%20Developments%20-%20Report%201%20Research%20Findings%20-%2022%20June%202012%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(5) PP01_WP11_Open Space Standards_2009_E3.pdf

(6) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Plans-and-policies/appendix-j-open-space-and-community-facilities-assessment-kellyville-station-precinct-2015-12.ashx

“The current default in many parts of NSW is a rate of 2.8ha per 1,000 new residents. This rate features in a number of planning frameworks, including the NSW Government’s Growth Centres Code and local government open space strategies and development contributions plans3. As an alternative, the Guidelines suggest a default rate of 15% of non-industrial land be allocated for open space purposes.”

(7) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Reports/central-district-open-space-definitions-sydney-open-spaces-draft-audit-summary-2016-02-29.ashx

(8) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

(9) http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/~/media/Files/DPE/Strategy-documents/draft-sydenham-to-bankstown-corridor-strategy-open-space-and-recreation-strategy-2015-05-25.ashx

 

(10) https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/17530/Best_Practice_Open_Space_in_Higher_Density_Developments_Project_Summary_Report_June_2012.pdf

(11)http://www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_root/PDFs/Precincts/Redfern_Waterloo/North_eveleigh_concept_plan/Electronic_copy_DOP/Appendix%206%20Residential%20Flat%20Code.pdf


 

 


  • 1
FloorSpaceRatio Map

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Tags : 

2016 North Eveleigh development proposal is exceeding allowable FSR (Floor Space Ratio) 

State Environmental Planning Authority 2005 Redfern Waterloo Map states a maximum FSR (Floor Space Ratio) of 2:1 is allowable in the Site.

Not only is Urban Growth NSW’s current 2016 plan exceeding the permissible building heights for the area (which is 10 Storeys) they are also exceeding the allowable Floor Space Ratio for the buildings.

Allowable Floor Space Ratio = 2:1

Superlot 1 FSR = 6.2:1

Superlot 2 FSR = 5.4:1

Superlot 3 FSR = 2.7:1

calculations below

FloorSpaceRatio Map

Building Height Map

 

Floor Space Ratio defines the permissible physical size of development allowed on a piece of land.

A guide for calculations can be viewed in this PDF here supplied by planning.nsw.gov.au.  Height and Floor Space Ratio PDF  

The FSR Calculation is defined as  Gross Floor Area / Site Area

  • Site Area” is the size or area of the Lots upon which the buildings will be built. (does not include areas such as parks, walkways and public streets/roads)
  • Gross Floor Area” (GFA) is the area of internal walls within each floor of a building. (does not include such areas as stairwells and Lift shafts, Ventilation Ducts)

North Eveleigh West Superlots Site Area.

Allowable FSR = 2:1

Proposed GFA 57000 m²

SuperLot A    4000 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 16
  • GFA = 24800 m²
  • FSR  = 6.2:1

SuperLot B    4700 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 14
  • GFA = 25500 m²
  • FSR  = 5.4:1

SuperLot C   2500 m²

  • Storeys 3 – 4
  • GFA  = 6800 m²
  • FSR  = 2.7:1

 

As noted below there is a subclause in the Legislation (State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005) that says the Building Height and FSR restrictions only apply where the minister for planning has not approved a Concept Plan. Until it is approved it is ILLEGAL. In other words he/ she can overrule the legislated restrictions.

It looks like it is up to us as a community to prove to the minister that good planning is NOT:

  1. HIGH POPULATION DENSITY   (506 people per hectare / 1600 residents within a 3.1 hectare precinct)

  2. ILLEGAL BUILDING HEIGHTS   (20 Storey Building Heights where 10 is legislated as the Max)

  3. ILLEGAL FSR   (up to 6.2:1 in an area legislated as 2:1)

  4. POOR ONISTE TRAFFIC (one point of entry and roads crossing public thoroughfares)

  5. INSUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE ( 0.32 ha Public Park for 1600 new residents)


  • -
Building Height Map

North Eveleigh Building Heights – Current NSW Legislation

Tags : 

Building Heights in NSW Legislation

This is part of an ongoing investigation into how Urban Growth NSW can come up with 20 Storey Building Heights on the proposed High Density North Eveleigh site. We have been recently told (Meeting 31 March 2016) that the proposed 20 Storey Heights are apparently “non negotiable”. Hearing that the main reason was the buildings minimal Solar shadowing (across the railway) and the forecast in population increase in Sydney we decided to have a look at the current Legislation.

On the City Of Sydney Planning Controls map it is noted that the North Eveleigh site is listed under the Redfern-Waterloo Authority which uses the following State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 (1).

North Eveleigh is also referenced below in the 2012 Sydney Regional Environment Plan 26 City West (2).

These legislative planning documents outline amongst other things, Building Height restrictions. The below references the current NSW Government Legislations available in regard to the North Eveleigh precinct.

(1) State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005

According to the NSW Legislation Website “State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005”, to which the North Eveleigh Precinct is part of, the Maximum building height allowed for the area is 10 storeys.

Redfern-Waterloo Authority SitesFloorSpaceRatio Map

Height of buildings Map    shows 10 storeys maximum

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/map/SEPP_MD_RWA_HOB_001_20110913.pdf?id=88bf3142-d24c-e128-fad0-e65dcce1fcd2


Building Height Map

 

EDIT 5 April 2016 – The Current Legislation says  In Part 5 Section 21 : Note Clause 3

21   Height, floor space ratio and gross floor area restrictions

(1)  The height of a building on any land that is the subject of the Height of Buildings Map is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on that map.      (10 storeys)

(2)  The floor space ratio of a building on any land that is the subject of the Floor Space Ratio Map is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on that map.   (FSR 2:1)

(2A)  The gross floor area of a building on any land that is the subject of the Gross Floor Area Map, being land known as the Australian Technology Park, is not to exceed the gross floor area shown for the land on that map.

Note. The total maximum floor space ratio for the land to which this subclause applies is equivalent to 2:1.

(3)  This clause applies only in relation to development where the Minister has not, in an approval for a concept plan for the development (whether given before or after the commencement of this clause), provided for the construction of a building that exceeds the height, floor space ratio or gross floor area restrictions, or any combination of restrictions, set out in subclauses (1), (2) and (2A).

(2) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 City West

The 2012 Sydney Regional Environment Plan shows Building Height restrictions on the Streets surrounding North Eveleigh as 9 to 12 meters in Height.

Of Note the Plan additionally outlines planning Principles for the Eveleigh Precinct.

Division 3 Planning principles for Precincts specifies Planning Principles for the Eveleigh precinct:

  • Urban Design

    The height of new buildings should reflect and emphasise the topography of the Precinct, at the same time respecting the height and scale of heritage items.

    New buildings within the Precinct that are close to the Precinct boundaries are to respect the character and height of buildings in their immediate vicinity.

    Any such buildings should not compromise the environmental amenity, heritage significance and general scale of development in their locality.

    Development involving former railway buildings and associated items of heritage significance is to result in their conservation and re-use.

Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

 


Forum Login

UserOnline

Users: 1 Guest