535 Harris Street Ultimo NSW 2007

To whom it may concern,

This submission is to object to the proposed development between 535 and 547 Harris Street in Ultimo, on the grounds that it would impact on the wellbeing of the residents and the heritage value of the terrace row on Hackett Street.

Our objections to the development are outlined below.

Design quality
We strongly reject the claims made in Appendix D Design Verification and Statement that the proposed development is in anyway consistent with Principle 1 Context and Neighbourhood Character and Principle 2 Built Form and Scale. The text in Appendix D deals exclusively with the Harris Street facade, not the Hackett Street facade. While a 7 storey facade might be appropriate for Harris Street, it is not appropriate for Hackett Street.

The cross section drawings of the proposed development show there will be 6.7m between the balconies on Level 1 and Level 2 and the front steps to the terrace row on Hackett Street. The drawings do not provide a measurement for the building separation from the Level 3 up, but the facade appears to be setback a further meter (around 7.7m).

In our view this building separation is grossly inadequate. It is out of proportion with the existing built form of Hackett Street. And, critically, it is not compliant with the NSW Apartment Design Guide.

According to the NSW Apartment Design Guide (Part 2, Section 2F, Page 37) the minimum separation distance should be 12m between habitable rooms and / or balconies for buildings up to four storeys and 18m between habitable rooms and / or balconies between five to eight storeys. The guide also suggests including an increase to the building setback from the boundary by 3m where there is a change from apartment buildings to a lower density area.

Applying this guidance to the proposed development would mean more than doubling the currently proposed building separation on Level 1 to 4 to 15m, and including a further 6m setback for the higher levels. These separations and setbacks could be reduced if the proponent reconfigured the apartments so the Hackett Street side of level 1 and 2 was non-habitable space.

Recommendation: The proposed development is revised to comply with the building separation and setback guidance in the NSW Apartment Design Guide. This would mitigate the impacts on overshadowing, reflectivity and privacy outlined below.

Overshadowing
As we have already detailed in our email on 28 January 2017, the shadow diagrams provided by the proponent are not accurate in their portrayal of the existing buildings along Hackett Street and Bulwara road. We cannot be sure that the extent of new shadowing is accurate.

Judging by the limited and faulty information available, it appears that the entire front facade of our property at 13 Hackett Street will be shadowed by the development up until after 1pm in the afternoon in winter. Before 3pm these facades will be in shadow because of their own orientation.

This is not acceptable. The lack of adequate separation and setbacks is the root cause of this issue. There does not appear to have been any design consideration of this issue.

The terrace row on Hackett Street is a heritage listed item. These terraces only have small windows and access to direct sunlight into the front bedrooms and living rooms in winter is an important part of amenity for residents. Reducing winter sun has the potential to make these buildings less liveable, increase issues with damp and risk the value for building owners maintaining these historic properties. This issue is discussed further below.

Recommendation: The proposed development is revised to comply with the building separation and setback guidance in the NSW Apartment Design Guide. The proponent should provide accurate shadow diagrams including impacts on the rear facade of the terraces on Bulwara road.

Reflectivity
As we have already detailed in our email on 28 January 2017, the reflectivity analysis provided by the proponent does not consider the potential for glare on to the existing buildings along Hackett Street and Bulwara road.

Given the amount of glazing on the west facade of the proposed development, and the extraordinarily small building separation it would be reasonable to expect some glare.

Recommendation: The proposed development is revised to comply with the building separation and setback guidance in the NSW Apartment Design Guide. The reflectivity analysis is updated to include a view looking at the proposed development from the laneway between 9 and 11 Hackett Street.

Privacy
Its not clear from the information provided that the privacy screens on the western facade are adequate. Natural light is a premium for the residents of the the terrace row on Hackett Street. A risk of being able to see into the terraces from the proposed development will lead to residents using blinds, which will reduce natural light and their wellbeing.

The Statement of Environmental Effects states that "as the Hackett Street terraces only rise to two storeys in height, it is considered that views from the proposed development from Level 2 and upwards would be obscured by the angle."

This statement is incorrect. 13 and 17 Hackett Street have attic conversions, i.e. they are three storey buildings. The proposed design has not considered the privacy of residents occupying these rooms.

Recommendation: The proposed development is revised to comply with the building separation and setback guidance in the NSW Apartment Design Guide. The proponent provides drawings demonstrating that views into the terrace row will be obscured by privacy screens.

Heritage
We strongly reject the analysis in Appendix C that the proposed development does not adversely affect the heritage listed terrace row on Hackett Street.

The main analysis appears to be that the increased overshadowing has no impact because the south eastern end of Hackett Street has commercial buildings that overshadow part of the terrace row.

"Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been minimised?
No. The eastern side of Hackett Street is already characterised by development of similar scale but with less articulation. The building has been set back along Hackett Street and has been articulated in close to the original subdivision pattern."

"Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance?
Yes. The presentation of the Hackett Street terraces on the street will be unaltered. There will be some additional morning shading to a few of the terraces. However, most of the terraces are shaded in the morning."

This is a ridiculous assessment. It's basically saying that because there has been some insensitive development on Hackett Street in the past, we should allow new insensitive development.

In our view, 531 Harris Street is a good example of high density development that has been sensitive to the surrounding heritage items. This building has appropriate setbacks and has a discrete car park entrance off Hackett Street.

Recommendation: the Heritage Impact Assessment should be revisited to assess the heritage of the individual buildings rather than the row as a whole. Council should not accept the argument that because heritage values of part of the terrace row have been diminished they can now be ignored.

Energy efficiency
The BASIX Score of the proposed development is 25. This is compliant because the building is proposed to be 7 storeys.

However, the DCP sets a maximum number of floors at 5 storeys. If the number of storeys was reduced the building would require a BASIX score of 30.

The NSW Government has committed to increasing BASIX energy and thermal comfort targets in July 2017. If the building was only 5 storeys the BASIX target would be 35. The maximum average heating load would be 25MJ/m2 and the maximum average cooling load would be 28.2MJ/m2 (well below what looks to be the average at the moment).

Looking at the BASIX report, there are several very cost effective energy efficiency measures available to the proponent. These include 5 star instantaneous gas hot water instead of 3 star, using laminated glass and UPVC framed glazing instead of single pane glass with aluminium frames and installing solar PV. Requiring these measures now will save tenants money in the future.

Recommendation: The council should consider the interaction between number of floors, BASIX targets and upcoming reforms to the BASIX SEPP. If the development application process is protracted the proponent could find it is non compliant.

Parking
Its not clear from the Statement of Environmental Effects whether the amount of on street parking on Hackett Street will be preserved. The traffic and parking assessment report, prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, states that:

"Hackett Street is a local, unclassified service lane which is primarily used to provide rear vehicular and pedestrian access to properties fronting Wattle Street. Kerbside parking is generally prohibited along the western side of the road."

This is incorrect. Hackett Street is a one way residential street with limited on street parking available for residents and visitors, mostly on the eastern side of the road. It is five blocks away from Wattle Street. The traffic assessment appears to have looked at Wattle Lane, not Hackett Street.

The proposed development will significantly increase traffic and congestion in this quiet residential street and will affect the already limited parking for residents of the terraces on Hackett Street (which do not have off street parking).

In our view, in the context of the actual existing traffic level in Hackett St, the projected increase in traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal is significant.

Recommendation: The council should consider requiring that the amount of on street parking be preserved. The proponent should provide a revised traffic and parking assessment that deals with Hackett Street.

Conclusion
The proposed development is not compliant with the considerations for building separation and setbacks in the NSW Apartment Design Guide and as a result would have highly significant overshadowing, glare, privacy and heritage value impacts.

The proponent has not adequately considered the impact of the proposed development on the existing heritage listed terrace row on Hackett Street. The development as proposed would have significant impacts on the amenity of the terrace row, the wellbeing of the residents and the financial return to the building owners.

We are not opposed to redeveloping the site and support a shift towards high density living. Thats one of the reasons we moved to Ultimo a decade ago. But the proposed development is farcical in its disregard for its context and the amenity of the neighbouring sites.

We urge the council to protect the existing neighbourhood and reject this development application.