15 June 2010
The Urban Taskforce has conducted a preliminary review of some decisions made by joint regional planning panels (JRPP). In two instances that we know of, JRPPs have rejected the recommendations of council staff to refuse applications and have approved significant development proposals. In each case council staff recommended refusal based on “non-compliance” with development controls. However, in both instances, the JRPP accepted development proposals that exceeded the development controls.
Mixed Use Building, 520 Miller Street, Cammeray
In this proposal the applicant applied to construct a four storey mixed use building with two basement levels, consisting of 655 square meters of retail space, 36 apartments, rooftop communal facilities and parking for 57 cars. The Council recommended refusal of this proposal due to the building’s height, absence of podium, excessive number of dwellings and lack of enough apartments with through ventilation.
The JRPP found that the height was appropriate, subject to the removal of the roof structures. However, the panel notes that the roof structures are useful community facilities and cannot be seen from street level.
Furthermore, the JRPP noted that the adjoining buildings do not have podiums, the number of dwellings proposed is consistent with the density of nearby buildings and recent approvals and with respect to ventilation, the proposal was consistent with accepted statewide criteria. Further information on this matter can be accessed from here.
Newtown RSL redevelopment, 52-60 Enmore Road, Newtown
In this proposal the applicant applied to demolish the existing building, consolidate the land and erect a five storey mixed use building containing a new club premises, café, shop and hotel comprising sixty-six rooms over a basement level with off street car parking for seventeen vehicles. The council staff recommended refusal of this proposal due to the proposal’s breach of floor space ratios and height controls, its roof design and the overshadowing of the residential building to the south. Objectors to the proposal emphasised the failure of the proposal to fit into the traditional streetscape of Enmore Road.
The JRPP found that neither the Council nor the objectors properly considered the fact that the existing building on the site is large and ugly and exceeds the floor space ratio control applying to this site and it is usual planning practice to allow a replacement building at least the density of the existing development on the site. Furthermore, while the proposal?s floor space ratio is higher than the existing, much of the floor space consists of areas that have an open appearance and are included in the floor space only because they are enclosed by glass over a balustrade for acoustic reasons.
With respect to reasons for refusal such as height and traditional streetscape, the panel found that the proposal is marginally higher in places, and lower in others, than the existing building and that the traditional scale of the streetscape has been already been severely disrupted, not only by the existing building on the site but also by other buildings.
The panel did not agree that the proposal causes additional overshadowing of the residential building to the south and that there is a consistent roof design in the locality.
The panel accepted that the proposal was more attractive and better designed than the existing building and that that the applicant’s SEPP 1 objections to the floor space ratio and height were justified. Further information on this matter can be accessed from here.
