Part3A
Determination
Central Park - Blocks 6 & 7
City of Sydney
Current Status: Determination
Archive
Application (3)
Request for DGRS (1)
EA (89)
Submissions (7)
Response to Submissions (9)
Recommendation (2)
Determination (2)
Approved Documents
There are no post approval documents available
Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
There are no inspections for this project.
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Showing 1 - 4 of 4 submissions
Dallas Lewis
Object
Dallas Lewis
Object
Chippendale
,
New South Wales
Message
Our home is immediately to the rear of a new building proposed to be constructed at 14 Kensington Street (Block 6).
In previously published documents from the time prior to Fraser's purchase of the CUB site and since, it had been accepted that the presentation of any new building as seen from the back door of our property would not be higher than that presented by the current building. I have attached three documents showing this history.
October 2006
1. Cox ATA 2006 10 31 Sun for 7 Goold St.pdf
Diagram showing the amended building envelope with the accepted angle of view from the Goold Street buildings to the rear of 14 Kensington Street
October 2008
2. JBA 2008 10 08 08084_PPR_Final 21 Oct 08.pdf
Diagram repeated (Refer Fig 10 p9)
January 2012
3. JBA 2012 01 23 Preliminary Environmental Assessment.pdf
Refer Item 4.4 (p6) "The EAR will ensure that the proposed building is consistent with the amended building envelope and that the amenity of the neighbouring buildings are protected."
In the currently exhibited Environmental Assessemnt Report- Blocks 6+7 (Nov 2012) it is stated that:
"The parapet height on the eastern boundary is at a constant RL of 22.20 AHD. This is significantly lower than the concept plan approved levels along the boundary. Please refer drawing 3 on A-602. The concept plan fails to be clear as to the intent along the eastern boundary. It is the view of the proponent that the cumulative reduced parapet height along the boundary, and the green roof, compensates for the continuity of the proposed structure."
My original submission on this made it very clear as to the intent along the eastern boundary. We argued that any new development should not give us a steeper angle of view to the sky than that presented by the current building because we didn't want our very small back yard to be in a dim light well. The angle drawings in the first two attached documents were the result of that submission, and are almost identical to those I originally submitted.
While the EAR shows that the narrow building on the eastern side of 14 Kensington Street would be slightly lower than the existing building, the height of the proposed building fronting 14 Kensignton Street rises steeply. Angle diagrams are now not included so it is difficult to see precisely what the impact of that building will be on us, but the principle embodied in the angle diagrams published as the amended building envelope was that it would not be visible to a person standing at ground level at our back door.
We submit that this principle should remain for any building proposed for 14 Kensington Street.
In previously published documents from the time prior to Fraser's purchase of the CUB site and since, it had been accepted that the presentation of any new building as seen from the back door of our property would not be higher than that presented by the current building. I have attached three documents showing this history.
October 2006
1. Cox ATA 2006 10 31 Sun for 7 Goold St.pdf
Diagram showing the amended building envelope with the accepted angle of view from the Goold Street buildings to the rear of 14 Kensington Street
October 2008
2. JBA 2008 10 08 08084_PPR_Final 21 Oct 08.pdf
Diagram repeated (Refer Fig 10 p9)
January 2012
3. JBA 2012 01 23 Preliminary Environmental Assessment.pdf
Refer Item 4.4 (p6) "The EAR will ensure that the proposed building is consistent with the amended building envelope and that the amenity of the neighbouring buildings are protected."
In the currently exhibited Environmental Assessemnt Report- Blocks 6+7 (Nov 2012) it is stated that:
"The parapet height on the eastern boundary is at a constant RL of 22.20 AHD. This is significantly lower than the concept plan approved levels along the boundary. Please refer drawing 3 on A-602. The concept plan fails to be clear as to the intent along the eastern boundary. It is the view of the proponent that the cumulative reduced parapet height along the boundary, and the green roof, compensates for the continuity of the proposed structure."
My original submission on this made it very clear as to the intent along the eastern boundary. We argued that any new development should not give us a steeper angle of view to the sky than that presented by the current building because we didn't want our very small back yard to be in a dim light well. The angle drawings in the first two attached documents were the result of that submission, and are almost identical to those I originally submitted.
While the EAR shows that the narrow building on the eastern side of 14 Kensington Street would be slightly lower than the existing building, the height of the proposed building fronting 14 Kensignton Street rises steeply. Angle diagrams are now not included so it is difficult to see precisely what the impact of that building will be on us, but the principle embodied in the angle diagrams published as the amended building envelope was that it would not be visible to a person standing at ground level at our back door.
We submit that this principle should remain for any building proposed for 14 Kensington Street.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Chippendale
,
New South Wales
Message
Refer to attachment
Attachments
Peter Watson
Comment
Peter Watson
Comment
Jeannie Sotheran
Object
Jeannie Sotheran
Object
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
MP11_0091
Assessment Type
Part3A
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved With Conditions
Determination Date
Decider
ED (MDA)
Last Modified By
MP11_0091-Mod-2
Last Modified On
05/01/2016
Contact Planner
Name
Caroline
Owen
Related Projects
MP11_0091-Mod-1
Determination
Part3A Modifications
Mod 1 - Design Changes
26 Broadway Chippendale New South Wales Australia 2008
MP11_0091-Mod-2
Determination
Part3A Modifications
Mod 2 - Further Design Changes
26 Broadway Chippendale New South Wales Australia 2008