CROWN SYDNEY HOTEL RESORT (SSD 6957)

Smart People, People Smart

T. +61 2 9956 6962 E. [email protected] W. ethosurban.com

173 Sussex St Sydney NSW 2000

ABN. 13 615 087 931

14 August 2020 Our Ref: 17632 Mr Cameron Sargent Department of Planning, Industry and Environment 320 Pitt Street Sydney, NSW

Dear Cameron Sargent,

SECTION 4.55(1A) MODIFICATION APPLICATION (MOD 4)

CROWN SYDNEY HOTEL RESORT (SSD 6957)

This application has been prepared by Ethos Urban on behalf of Crown Sydney Hotel Resort (Crown) pursuant to

section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to modify Development

Consent SSD 6957 (Development Consent) relating to the approved Crown Sydney Hotel Resort located at 51a

Hickson Road, Barangaroo, NSW.

The modifications relate to alterations and amendments to the approved scheme. An overview of the proposed

modifications is provided in Section 2.0.

While modifications are proposed to the approved development, all of the proposed changes are minor, and the

modifications remain substantially the same as the originally approved development in that:

the proposed modifications to the approval will not alter the building form or function;

the internal modifications proposed are minor in the context of the scale of the building;

the land use mix remains generally consistent with that of the approved development, being within the approved

maximum GFA limits;

no changes to the maximum approved GFA are proposed;

the signage zones as proposed to be modified, do not result in any significant external changes to the

appearance;

no changes to the approved parking numbers are proposed; and

the anticipated environmental impacts are consistent with those of the approved development.

The development, as proposed to be modified, is therefore both essentially and materially of the same essence as

that of the approved development and is considered to be substantially the same as the approved development.

The modification of the Development Consent can therefore be lawfully made under section 4.55 of the EP&A Act.

The application identifies the Development Consent, describes the proposed modifications and provides a planning

assessment of the relevant matters for consideration contained in Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act. The

application is accompanied by:

Amended Architectural Plans prepared by Bates Smart (Attachment A);

Amended GFA Plans prepared by Bates Smart (Attachment B);

BCA Statement prepared by McKenzie Group (Attachment C); and

Access Statement prepared by McKenzie Group (Attachment D).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ethosurban.com/

51a Hickson Road, Barangaroo, NSW | Section 4.55(1A) | 14 August 2020

Ethos Urban | 17632 2

The statement should be read in conjunction with:

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd, dated July 2015;

Response to Submissions report prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd, dated October 2015;

and

Further Response to Submissions report dated 16 February 2016.

1.0 Consent proposed to be modified

Development Consent for a mixed-use building, known as Crown Sydney Hotel Resort, was granted by the Planning Assessment Commission on 28 June 2016.

On 31 October 2019, Application SSD 6957 Mod 1 was approved. The modifications related to various alterations to

the approved scheme including the reconfiguration of the internal layout and apartment layouts, resulting in changes

to the GFA breakdown and increase in the number of residential apartments. The modification also included the

reconfiguration of the basement car park resulting in a changes to the breakdown of car space allocation, additional

residential bicycle parking spaces, minor design amendments to the ground level including landscaping,

reconfiguration to the terrace layouts on Levels 3, 4 and 24, and the addition of an observation deck for the public

within Level 66.

On 7 May 2020 a second modification under section 4.55(1A) (SSD 6957 Mod 2) was. The modification included

the amalgamation of apartments on Levels 33, 37, 51, 60 and 61. The second modification resulted in a decrease in

the total number of residential apartments from 87 to 81 as currently approved.

Subsequently on 13 July 2020 a third modification under section 4.55(1A) (SSD 6957 Mod 3) was approved. The

modification included the amalgamation of apartments on Levels 48 and 49 and a commensurate minor reduction in

residential GFA.

The Development Consent, as modified, includes:

site remediation, earthworks, excavation, structural and site preparation works;

construction and fit-out of a 71-storey (RL 275 metre) tower including podium;

construction of three basement levels;

a total GFA of 77,500 sqm, comprising:

− 76 residential apartments;

− hotel use (350 hotel keys/rooms) and ancillary guest and visitor facilities;

− 6,085 sqm restricted gaming facility GFA; and

− 6,700 sqm retail GFA.

641 on-site car parking spaces and 207 bicycle parking spaces;

public domain works and landscaping; and

business and building identification signage and signage zones.

The proposed modification that is the subject of this application represents the fourth modification to SSD 6957.



2.0 Proposed modifications to the consent

The proposed modifications to the development consent comprise:

an additional preparation kitchen at Level 23;

an additional staff room at Level 25;

additional Photovoltaic arrays at the Level 4 and Level 5 terrace roofs;

expansion of a Level 64 residential terrace to accommodate a pool;

raising of roof level parapet glazing height;

inclusion of two (2) additional business identification signage zones at ground level; and

minor reconfiguration of the internal tourism retail and residential GFA, while remaining within the approved total

GFA of 77,500m2;

An overview of the proposed modifications is provided in Table 1 below, with a more detailed summary provided in

the remainder of this letter.

Table 1 Summary of Proposed Modifications

Original Consent (SSD 6957) Modified Consent (SSD 6957 MOD 3)

Proposed Modification (this application)

Change


N/A As approved NIL

construction and fit-out of a 71 storey (RL 275 metre) tower including podium;

N/A As approved NIL

construction of three basement levels; NIL As approved NIL

a total approved GFA of 77,500sqm NIL As approved NIL

• 66 residential apartments; 76 residential apartments As approved NIL

• Hotel use (350 hotel keys/rooms) and ancillary guest and visitor facilities;

349 As approved NIL

• 6,085 sqm restricted gaming facility GFA; and

NIL As approved NIL

• 6,700sqm retail GFA NIL As approved NIL

610 on-site car parking spaces, comprising:

• 250 valet spaces

• 250 self-parking spaces

• 110 residential spaces

641 on-site car parking spaces, comprising:

• 271 valet spaces

• 213 self-parking spaces


As approved NIL

188 bicycle parking spaces, comprising:

• 83 non-residential spaces


• 37 visitor (public) spaces

207 bicycle parking spaces, comprising:

• As approved non-residential spaces

• 87 residential bicycle spaces

• As approved visitor (public spaces)

As approved NIL

35 motorcycle parking NIL As approved NIL

public domain works and landscaping NIL As approved NIL

business and building identification signage and signage zones

NIL Amendments to the locations and number of

business identification signage zones

Two (2) additional

business identification signage

zone



3.0 Modifications to the development

A detailed floor by floor account of the proposed modifications at each level is provided in Table 2 below, with

further description provided throughout this section. The proposed changes are clouded on Architectural Plans at

Attachment A.

Table 2 Level by level description of the proposed modification

Level Description of Proposed Modifications

Ground Floor − Two additional business identification signage zones

Level 4 − Additional Photovoltaic arrays on the Level 3 terrace roof

Level 5 − Additional Photovoltaic arrays on the Level 4 terrace roof

Level 23 − Modification of building plant into an additional preparation kitchen

Level 25 − Additional staff and storage room

Level 64 − Expansion of residential terrace balcony to accommodate pool

Roof Level − Increase in building elevation glazing and roof parapet height

3.1 Modifications to Business Identification Signage Zones

The proposed modifications to the approved signage zones include:

one additional small-scale signage zone on the northern façade of the podium (see Figure 1); and

one additional proposed small-scale signage zone (located at the back surface of a dining seat) to the western

and southern façades of the podium (See Figure 2 and Figure 3).

These changes have been necessitated as a result of the tenants fit-out design, relating to the western restaurant

and bar, and northern café on the ground floor. The proposed additional signage zones are further detailed within

Table 3 below.

Table 3 Proposed additional signage zones

Signage Zone SSD 6957

(as approved)

Proposed

dimensions

Location

Northern café entry signage zone

• Nil • 600mm height

• 1700mm length/width

To be located next to the café entry door



Signage Zone SSD 6957 (as approved)

Proposed dimensions

Location

Western restaurant

external seat signage zone

• Nil • 750mm height

• 2400mm

length/width

To be located on the back of the seating structure



Figure 1 Extracts of north elevation approved signage zone (above), proposed signage zone (below

Source: Wilkinson Eyre & Bates Smart

Figure 2 Extracts of west elevation approved signage zone (above), proposed signage zone (below)




Figure 3 Extracts of south elevation approved signage zone (above), proposed signage zone (below


3.2 Additional Photovoltaic (PV) Arrays on Level 4 and Level 5 Terrace Roof

Additional PV Array are required in order to meet the BASIX commitments that have been approved, being those

under BASIX certificate (640026M_05). This application seeks to include the specific PV Arrays on the plans to be

approved, to avoid any inconsistencies between the approved plans which may prevent achieving Crown’s

commercial commitments and requirements under the approved BASIX certificate (See Figure 4 and Figure 5) .

These PV Arrays were incorrectly excluded from the previous modification applications, and as such, this

modification seeks to correct this administrative error. The detailed plans included within Appendix A are to provide

specific details of the PV Arrays and are not intended to replace the approved Level 4 and Level 5 arrangement

plans.



Figure 4 Extract of approved Level 4 Plan (left) and proposed Level 4 PV Array Plan (right)

Source: Bates Smart

Figure 5 Extract of approved Level 5 Plan (left) and proposed Level 5 Plan (right)

Source: Bates Smart



3.3 Additional Preparation Kitchen on Level 23

During recent discussions with the intended operators for the restaurants, it has been determined that the

introduction of an additional preparation kitchen associated with the existing kitchen on Level 24, will greatly benefit

its overall operations.

The further rationalisation and consolidation of building plant during construction stage has allowed for an additional

kitchen to be incorporated into the Level 23, just below the existing Level 24 kitchen (See Figure 6). Kitchens on

both Level 23 and Level 24 will operate collectively, with the preparation of food largely being within the Level 23

kitchen, allowing the Level 24 kitchen to present as a ‘show kitchen’, in line with the intensions of the operators.


Source: Bates Smart

3.4 Additional staff room on Level 25

An additional staff and storage room is proposed, in order to improve the operations of the restaurants and bars on

Level 24. Further design development and rationalisation of the building’s plant services has allowed for this room to

be created on Level 25 (see Figure 7). The purpose of this room is to provide space for the storage of goods

associated with the restaurant and bar uses at Level 24, as well as overflow space for the staff to rest, prepare for

shift and store their belongings. Part of the space can further be used for the medium to long term storage of goods

associated with the function spaces located at Level 3.




Source: Bates Smart

3.5 Enlargement of Terrace for Additional Pool on Level 24

As a result of a specific buyer request one of the terraces associated with the apartment at Level 64 is proposed to

be extended, increasing the terrace area and reducing the internal apartment area by 20 sqm, in turn

accommodating a small pool on the terrace (See Figure 8). The revised terrace size is 29.8 sqm. This modification

will result in the minor reduction of the total residential GFA, as further detailed within Section 3.7.


Source: Bates Smart



3.6 Raising of Roof Parapet

The roof parapet glazing is proposed to be raised on the roof level to ensure adequate safety for maintenance. The

roof structures contain PV arrays which are located in proximity to the parapet. Therefore, if one is standing on top

of these PV arrays, it has been determined that the existing parapet does not extend high enough to provide

appropriate protection.

As such, the existing building glazing is proposed to be extended beyond the existing parapet by 275mm, to not

only ensure that the safety parapet is of the necessary height, but also result in a more aesthetic outcome by hiding

the roof structures. A visualisation of this proposed extension of the glazing is illustrated at Figure 9.

Figure 9 Overlay of proposed glazing oversail and original parapet design on the roof

Source: Bates Smart

3.7 Amendments to GFA

As a result of four modification applications (including this one), there have been various minor amendments to the

GFA plans and GFA calculations across the whole building. With the construction of the building now nearing

completion, Crown have completed another more comprehensive review of the building’s GFA plans, which are

included at Appendix B. These plans incorporate all modifications to date, including this application, and correct all

previous minor errors in documentation. These GFA plans are therefore submitted alongside this modification

application to correct minor administrative errors, to avoid inconsistencies between the approved GFA plans and the

approved modification applications.

These GFA calculations remain within the maximum GFA as permitted under of the Concept Plan (Mod 8) (see

Table 4).

It is noted that some of the restaurants are included within the tourism GFA instead of the Retail GFA, as they are to

be operated by and are ancillary to the Hotel.



Table 4 Approved target GFA as per the Concept Plan (Mod 8)

Type of Use

Tourism GFA (sqm) Retail (sqm) (maximum)

Residential GFA (sqm) (maximum)

Sub Total

Proposed GFA (sqm) 50,179 4,963 22,353 77,495

Target GFA (sqm) 48,200 6,700 22,600 77,500

4.0 Modification to Conditions

The proposed modifications described above necessitate amendments to the consent conditions which are

identified below. Words proposed to be inserted are shown in bold italics.

1. The description of the approved development is amended by the deletion of struck out words and the insertion of bold and underlined words as follows: Development of the mixed-use Crown Sydney Hotel Resort, including:


construction and fit-out of a 71-storey (RL 275 metre) tower including podium;

construction of three basement levels;

a total GFA of 77,500sqm, comprising:

− 76 residential apartments;

− hotel use (349 hotel keys/rooms) and ancillary guest and visitor facilities;

− 6,085sqm restricted gaming facility GFA; and

− 6,700 4,963 sqm retail GFA.

641 on-site car parking spaces and 207 bicycle parking spaces;

public domain works and landscaping; and

business and building identification signage and signage zones

Part A

A2. The Applicant shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the:

….

f) Environmental Impact Statement entitled ‘Section 4.55(2) Modification Application – Crown Sydney Hotel

Resort (SSD 6957)’, and accompanying appendices prepared by Ethos Urban (dated 24 May 2019), Response

to Submissions prepared by Ethos Urban (dated 24 July 2019) and Revised Response to Submissions

prepared by Ethos Urban (dated 4 September 2019)

g) Environmental Impact Statement entitled ‘Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application – Crown Sydney Hotel

Resort (SSD 6957)’, and accompanying appendices prepared by Ethos Urban (dated 6 December 2019);

h) Environmental Impact Statement entitled ‘Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application – Crown Sydney Hotel

Resort (SSD 6957)’, and accompanying appendices prepared by Ethos Urban (dated 18 December 2019);

i) Environmental Impact Statement entitled ‘Section 4.55(1A) Modification Application – Crown Sydney

Hotel Resort (SSD 6957)’, and accompanying appendices prepared by Ethos Urban (dated ## July 2020)

i) j) The conditions of this consent;

j) k) Concept Plan Approval MP06_0162; and

k) l) The following drawings, except for:



i) any modifications which are Exempt or Complying Development as identified in State Environmental

Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or as may be necessary for the

purpose of compliance with the BCA and any Australian Standards incorporated in the BCA; and

ii) otherwise provided by the conditions of this consent.

Development in Accordance with Plans

A2. The Applicant shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the: …. h) The following drawings, except for:

i. any modifications which are Exempt or Complying Development as identified in State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or as may be necessary for the purpose of compliance with the BCA and any Australian Standards incorporated in the BCA; and

ii. otherwise provided by the conditions of this consent.

Table to be updated in line with modified plan dates and revision numbers (refer to Attachment A)

Reason for Modification:

This condition is required to be updated to reflect the revised architectural plans for the development.

5.0 Minimal Environmental Impact

Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act states that a consent authority may modify a development consent if it is satisfied

that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact. All modifications proposed within this application

are internal and will have no perceptible environmental impact. An assessment of the anticipated impacts of the

proposed modification is provided in the attached technical reports and in Section 7.0 below. Due to minimal

environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification it can be approved under Section 4.55(1A) of the

EP&A Act.

6.0 Substantially the same development

Section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act states that a consent authority may modify a development consent if “it is

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

the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was

modified (if at all)”.

The development, as proposed to be modified, is substantially the same development as that originally approved in

that:

the proposed modifications to the approval will not alter the building form or function;

the internal modifications proposed are minor in the context of the scale of the building;

the land use mix remains generally consistent with that of the approved development, being within the approved

maximum GFA limits;

no changes to the maximum approved GFA are proposed;

the signage zones as proposed to be modified, do not result in any significant external changes to the

appearance

no changes to the approved parking numbers are proposed; and

the anticipated environmental impacts are consistent with those of the approved development.



The development, as proposed to be modified is therefore both essentially and materially of the same essence as

that of the approved development and is therefore considered to be substantially the same as the approved

development. The modification of the Development Consent can therefore be lawfully made under section 4.55 of

the EP&A act.

7.0 Environmental assessment

Under section 4.55(3) the Consent Authority must also take into consideration the relevant matters to the application

referred to in section 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act and the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the

original consent.

The EIS submitted with the original application (SSD 6957) assessed the potential impacts of the overall

development with regard to the following key planning issues:

• Consistency with Relevant EPIs, Policies and Strategies

• Barangaroo Concept Plan

• Design Excellence

• Urban Design and Built Form

• Residential Amenity

• Overshadowing Impacts

• Wind

• Reflectivity

• Signage

• Transport and Accessibility

• Security and Safety

• Social Impacts

• Economic Impact

• Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

• Marine Ecology

• Heritage

• Archaeology

• Operational Noise and Vibration

• Navigation Impacts

• Fire Safety

• Stormwater and Drainage

• Infrastructure and Utilities

• Building Code of Australia (BCA) and Access

• Structural Engineering

• Geotechnical

• Contamination

• Operational Waste Management

• Ecologically Sustainable Development

• Sydney Observatory Impacts

• Construction Management

The planning assessment of the proposed modified development remains generally unchanged with respect to the

large majority of the above matters. The following matters however warrant further assessment.

7.1 Compliance with Statutory Plans and Policies

An assessment of the proposed changes against the relevant statutory plans, including the Barangaroo Concept

Plan, are provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Compliance with Relevant Statutory Plans and Policies

Instrument/ Strategy Comments

SEPP 65 Refer to Section 7.3

State Environmental Planning

Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005

The Barangaroo site is listed as a State Significant Precinct under Part 12 of Schedule 3 of

State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 (previously approved pursuant to Major Development SEPP).

Clause 8 - Zone B4 Mixed Use

The proposed uses within the development are not proposed to be altered and are all permissible with the B4 zone.

Clause 17 - Height

of buildings (Maximum RL 41.5)

The proposed modifications do not alter the maximum RL of 275m,

and therefore complies with the maximum permitted height development standard.

Clause 18 - Gross Floor Area Restrictions -

Maximum 77,500m2 (across Block Y)

The proposed development has a capped GFA of 77,500m2 which complies with the maximum GFA development standard for the site.



Instrument/ Strategy Comments

Clause 19 - Design Excellence

The proposed development does not modify the design of the building, which continues to demonstrate Design Excellence in accordance with clause 19.

Clause 23 –

Development near zone boundaries

This clause applies to land within a 25m distance of a boundary of any

2 zones. In the case of the development, approval for parts of the terraces and balconies, and future food and drink premises over RE1 zoned land was given as part of the approved development. No

modifications are proposed to these terraces and balconies and the development will continue to operate terraces and balconies in

accordance this clause.

State Environmental Planning

Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

The proposed modifications continue to be consistent with requirement of the SEPP. Refer

to Section 7.1.1.

7.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

SEPP 64 applies to all signage that can be displayed with or without development consent and is visible from any

public place or public reserve, except as otherwise provided in that policy.

The proposed signage zones (as amended) continues to fall under the definition of ‘business identification signage’,

which is defined under SEPP 64 as follows:

Pursuant to Clause 8 of SEPP 64 the objectives of SEPP 64 and the criteria in Schedule 1 – Assessment Criteria of

SEPP 64 are required to be considered in the assessment of the proposed modifications to the signage zones,

including the additional signage zones.

Clause 3 states the aims and objectives of SEPP 64 which are:

(a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and

(b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c) to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d) to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e) to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

The signage zones as proposed to be modified remain consistent with the above objectives in that the signs

generally maintains its original design intent to be presented as an integral part of the overall building design, and

will continue to effectively communicate tenancy operations without having any adverse impact on the amenity or

visual character of Barangaroo South. The additional signage zones are relatively small in the context of the

building’s podium, however will improve the effective communication of business identification.

Schedule 1 of SEPP 64 contains a range of assessment criteria which are matters for consideration by the consent

authority in assessing applications for signage. The modified proposal in relation to the signage zones remains

consistent with the objectives of SEPP 64 and continues to satisfy the criteria specified in Schedule 1 of SEPP 64

as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 6 Assessment of the proposal against the assessment criteria set out at Schedule 1 of SEPP 64

Assessment Criteria Comments Compliance

Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is

proposed to be located?

The modified signage zones are compatible with the building architecture and public domain interface.

Y




Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for

outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

The modified signage zones will facilitate the business

identification signage to be consistent in look and feel with other high-quality business identification signage proposed for the Crown Hotel Resort and within the

wider Barangaroo South precinct, and will improve the integration of the business identification signage with the fit-out of the tenancy, resulting in an improved

theme and visual quality.

Y

Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space

areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The modified signage zones will not detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage area, natural or other

conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes, or residential areas.

Y

Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

The modified signage zones will not obscure or compromise any important views.

Y

Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce

the quality of vistas?

The modified signage zones do not dominate the

skyline reduce the quality of vistas.

Y

Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other

advertisers?

The modified signage zones will not impact on the

viewing rights of any advertisers.

Y

Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The scale, form and proportion of the signage zones is minimal, unobtrusive to the surrounding built form, and appropriate for the setting in which it currently exists.

Y

Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of

the streetscape, setting or landscape?

The modified signage zones will contribute to the

visual interest of the building façade and public domain interface.

Y

Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

N/A N/A

Does the proposal screen unsightliness? N/A N/A

Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

N/A N/A

Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion

and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

The modified signage zones are compatible with the

scale and proportion of the building and ground floor interfaces.

Y

Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

The modified signage zones are respectful of, and will not distract from, the design of the building

Y

Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The modified signage zones are highly integrated within the façade of the building podium, as well as

within the structural seating element of the western restaurant

Y

Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage

or structure on which it is to be displayed?

N/A. Illumination will be assessed subject to a future detailed signage DA.

N/A

Would illumination result in unacceptable glare? N/A. Illumination will be assessed subject to a future detailed signage DA.

N/A

Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?


N/A

Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?


N/A

Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if

necessary?

N/A. Illumination will be assessed subject to a future

detailed signage DA.

N/A

Is the illumination subject to a curfew? N/A. Illumination will be assessed subject to a future detailed signage DA.

N/A




Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public

road?

Due to the design, location, and scale of the modified

signage zones, the proposal will not reduce road safety for any public road.

Y

Would the proposal reduce safety for pedestrians/cyclists?

The modified signage zones will not reduce pedestrian or cyclist safety.

Y

Would the proposal reduce safety for pedestrians,

particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The modified signage zones will not obscure sightlines

from public areas.

Y

7.1.2 City of Sydney Signage and Advertising Structures DCP 2005

The proposed modification to the approved signage zones do not change the proposals ability to meet the

objectives of the DCP, as the modifications to the previously approved signage zones had been designed to be

integrated into the building and is considered suitably located in the context of the surrounding commercial locality.

In addition, the modified proposal will maintain the ability to provide wayfinding to tenancies located at ground level.

7.1.3 Barangaroo Concept Plan (Mod 8)

The development is located within Block Y of Barangaroo South and has been designed in accordance with the

approved Concept Plan (Mod 8), as detailed below.

The approved Concept Plan identifies maximum GFA and height controls for each Development Block within

Barangaroo South, including Block Y, within which development is to be located. The proposed development is

required to comply with the Concept Plan, including but not limited to, a maximum amount of GFA allowed within

Block Y. The proposed modification to the approved development does not alter the building’s total GFA and

therefore will continue to comply with the requirement under the approved Concept Plan.

In addition, the approved Concept Plan requires future applications to demonstrate consistency with the proposed

Built Form Principles and ‘Barangaroo South Design Guidelines’. The proposed modification to the approved

development is largely for minor internal works only and will not result in any amendments to the building’s exterior

design. It will therefore continue to deliver a design outcome that is consistent with the Built Form principles and

Design Guideline for the site.

Numeric Concept Plan Controls

Table 7 provides a comparison of the development’s compliance with the proposed Concept Plan (Mod 8)

numerical controls.

Table 7 Compliance with Concept Plan Block Y GFA and Height Controls

Block Y Concept Plan Control Approved Proposed Modification Compliance

Maximum GFA – 77,500m2 77,500m2 As approved Compliant

Maximum Residential GFA – 22,600m2 20,675m2 As approved Compliant

Maximum height – RL 275 RL 275 As approved Compliant

Design Guidelines – Part 4

Overall, the modifications to the development remain compliant with the principles and controls by ensuring the

retention of:

a building mass that remains appropriate within the envelope;

a street wall that defines the promenade;

an articulated, well-proportioned and legible building mass;

permeability and accessibility through Block Y;



an articulated and legible rooftop; and

high architectural quality facades that contribute to the building’s articulation and mass.

Table 8 demonstrates the proposed modifications consistency with Part 4 of the Guidelines.

Table 8 Compliance with relevant design solutions in Part 4 of the Guideline

Concept Plan (Mod 8) Block Y Control Proposed amendment Comment

5.1.2 Residential Amenity

Performance criteria – Residential development achieves a high level of internal amenity and minimises impact upon the

amenity of other existing and proposed residential development, including allowing for adequate solar access, natural ventilation, private open space and acoustic and visual privacy

DS1 - The design of Residential Apartment Buildings is to have regard to the ‘Rules of

Thumb’ in the Residential Flat Design Code

No amendments are proposed with regards to the building’s consistency with the ‘Apartment Design Guide’ (which replaces

the ‘Residential Flat Design Code’)

Consistent

DS2 - Landscape spaces for future

residents are generally provided in the form of balconies, wintergardens and roof terraces

The proposed amendments only seek to extend a residential

terrace to accommodate a pool. This will further improve the residential amenity for future residents. No other amendments are proposed with regards to balconies, wintergardens or

landscaped roof terraces.

Consistent

DS3 - Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments across the site should receive a minimum of

2 hours direct sunlight between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. in mid-winter(excluding south-facing units)

No amendments are proposed with regard to solar access. Consistent

DS4- The maximum number of single

aspect apartments with a southerly aspect (SW-SE) is 10% of all apartments proposed Note: where this cannot be achieved,

development must demonstrate how site constraints and orientation prohibit the achievement of these standards and how

energy efficiency is addressed

No amendments are proposed with regard to single aspect

apartments.

Consistent

Performance criteria – Development encourages housing choice and affordability.

DS1 - A minimum of 2.3% of all approved

residential GFA is provided as key worker housing

Key worker housing will be provided as part of other residential

development within Barangaroo South. No change to this approved arrangement is proposed as part of this modification.

-

DS2 - Housing across the site should provide a variety of types, sizes and

configurations

The proposed modification will not alter the residential dwelling mix as approved.

Consistent

DS3 - Wintergardens are encouraged in high-rise buildings where wind impacts do not support the provision of balconies. In

such circumstances, wintergardens may not be considered GFA

No amendments are proposed with regard to wintergardens. Consistent

5.1.3 Car Parking and Servicing

Performance criteria – Car parking and servicing balances on-site car parking to accommodate reasonable provision with encouraging alternative modes of transport to the private motor vehicle; is safe, functional and convenient; ensures buildings

can be adequately serviced by service and delivery vehicles; and is located and designed to not visually dominate the public

realm.

DS1 – Car parking is provided in accordance with the Barangaroo Concept Plan

The proposed modification will not alter the car parking as approved.

Consistent

DS2 – On-site parking areas comply with

AS2890.1:2004

The proposed modification will not alter the car parking as

approved.

Consistent



Concept Plan (Mod 8) Block Y Control Proposed amendment Comment

DS3 – For commercial buildings, a minimum of 1 shower for every 10 bicycle spaces is provided

No ‘commercial/office’ space is proposed for the development. -

DS4 – Building servicing and loading

facilities are designed to adequately cater for forecast building demand

No change is proposed to the servicing and loading areas,

which continue to be suitable for the development.

Consistent

DS5 – Service/delivery areas accord with AS2890. 2:2002 subject to driveways

complying with City of Sydney Council’s requirements

No change is proposed to the servicing and loading areas, which continue to be suitable for the development.

Consistent

5.1.9 Building Articulation The proposed changes will not affect the building’s compliance with these design standards.

Consistent

5.1.10 Building Legibility

5.1.11 Ground Floor Permeability and Accessibility of Public Realm

5.1.12 Ensuring Quality of Rooftops

5.1.13 Articulated Facades

Barangaroo South Built Form and Urban Design Controls

The Barangaroo South Built Form and Urban Design Controls approved under the Concept Plan (Modification 8)

apply to the proposed development. The proposal complies or is otherwise consistent with the relevant objectives

and controls, in particular:

Control 9 - Signage

Objective

To ensure that the location, size, appearance and quality of building signage is appropriate and is

integrated into the overall design of the building Standard • Signage is appropriate on podium, mid-rise and tower. • Signage is to be considered as part of the overall design of the building.

The modified signage zones as proposed under this application is consistent with the controls as they:

are generally consistent with the intended location of the approved business identification signage zones (being

under the canopy), and integrated with the existing podium façade and public domain interface;

are not intrusive and do not detract from the overall design of the building or façade design; and

are of a size which is appropriate to their positioning, without altering the perceived architecture of the building.

Accordingly, the proposed development is therefore consistent with the approved Concept Plan (Modification 8).



7.2 Signage

The modified signage zones as proposed under this application are acceptable for the following reasons:

the proposed additional signage zones are generally consistent with the location of the approved business

identification signage zones (being under the canopy), and are integrated with the existing façade and public

domain interface;

the signage zones as modified remain suitably located in the context of the surrounding commercial locality and

remain generally consistent with the intended business identification signage within Barangaroo South;

the additional signage zones are not intrusive and do not detract from the overall design of the building or

façade design;

the signage zones as modified are of a size which is appropriate to its positioning, without altering the perceived

architecture of the building;

the signage zones as modified are consistent with the Schedule 1 assessment criteria of SEPP 64 (refer to

Table 6 above);

the signage zones as modified are consistent with the City of Sydney Signage and Advertising Structures DCP

2005; and

the signage zones as modified remain consistent with the approved Concept Plan (Modification 8).

7.3 Residential Amenity

The approved development will continue to be consistent with the assessment provided within the Design

Verification Statements prepared by Bates Smart dated 03 December 2019 (submitted with MOD 1) and 25 June

2020 (submitted with MOD 2). The minor reduction in the total internal area apartment area for the apartment on

Level 23 does not impact the ability for the development to achieve the design principles set out in the State

Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and “Apartment Design

Guide”, as the apartment was already significantly largely than the minimum requirements. Furthermore, this

modification comes at the direct request of a purchaser and will enhance the amenity of the apartment by providing

an additional facility in the form of a small pool in an expanded terrace.

7.4 Building Code of Australia (BCA)

A BCA Statement has been prepared by McKenzie Group (see Attachment C) which provides an assessment of

the amended proposal against the BCA and confirms that the proposed amendments meet the relevant provisions

of the Building Code of Australia 2016.

7.5 BASIX

The BASIX commitments outlined within the approved BASIX certificate (640026M_05) already incorporate the

additional PV Array cells proposed under this application. Therefore, no further update to the BASIX certificate is

required.

7.6 Fire Safety

The proposed amendments do not result in any changes to the current approved Fire Engineering Strategy for the

building, and therefore will not result in any impacts to the fire safety of the building.

7.7 Access

An Access Statement has been prepared by McKenzie Group (see Attachment D), which provides an assessment

of the proposed modifications and concludes that these proposed variations do not impact on the overall

accessibility of the proposed development.



8.0 Conclusion

The proposed modifications to the approved development as sought in this application comprise various minor internal

and external modifications throughout the building.

In accordance with section 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority may modify the consent as:

the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact as the changes are largely internal and will not

alter the form or function of the approved development;

the consent, as proposed to be modified, is substantially the same development as that originally approved;

the environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications are consistent with those of the approved development and are considered to be satisfactory;

the proposed changes to the internal configurations and additional signage zone are minor in context of the

entire building;

the proposed modification will not change the approved maximum GFA; and

the development (as proposed to be modified) continues to comply with the relevant statutory plans and policies, including the approved Barangaroo Concept Plan (Mod 8).

In light of the above, we therefore recommend that the proposed modification is supported by the consent authority. We trust that this information is sufficient to enable a prompt assessment of the proposed modification.

Yours sincerely,

Prugya Maini

Urbanist 9956 6962 [email protected]

Ben Craig

Associate Director 9956 6962 [email protected]



CROWN SYDNEY HOTEL RESORT (SSD 6957)

Documents

Transcript of CROWN SYDNEY HOTEL RESORT (SSD 6957)