Statement of Environmental Effects

the subject site — (lot/plan reference redacted)

Prepared by: Perry Town Planning NSW Date: [Insert date — Assumption — verify] DA Reference: [Insert DA number on lodgement] Applicant: [Insert applicant name — Assumption — verify] Owner: [Insert registered proprietor — confirm via NSW LRS title search]

> Critical prefatory note — no proposal description supplied. The customer has not provided a project description, architectural drawings, or works schedule. This SEE has been drafted on the assumption that the proposal comprises a permanent commercial kiosk / food and beverage pavilion with associated public domain landscaping improvements within the the subject site pedestrian precinct — a use type commonly approved in the RE1 Public Recreation zone at this location. Every assumption derived from that premise is tagged [Assumption — verify]. The planner reviewing this document must replace all assumptions with verified project data before lodgement. Lodging this document in its current state without review would not constitute a complete DA.

---

1. Introduction

This Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) has been prepared in support of a Development Application (DA) lodged with the City of Sydney Council pursuant to Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

The subject site is located at the subject site, being (lot/plan reference redacted). The site is located within the heart of the Sydney Central Business District (CBD), within the the subject site pedestrian precinct — one of the most significant pieces of civic public domain in New South Wales.

The proposed development is [Insert description — Assumption — verify; for the purposes of this draft, a permanent commercial kiosk / food and beverage pavilion with associated landscaping and public domain improvements].

This SEE addresses the matters for consideration set out in section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, including the relevant environmental planning instruments, development control plans, likely environmental impacts, the suitability of the site, and the public interest.

---

2. Site Description and Context

2.1 Site Identification

2.2 Site Area and Dimensions

• Site area: [Insert — Assumption — verify against deposited plan]
• Street frontage: the subject site (pedestrian mall) to the [north/south — Assumption — verify]; [secondary street if any — Assumption — verify]
• Site dimensions: [Insert from deposited plan — Assumption — verify]
• Topography: Generally level, consistent with the established pedestrian grade of the subject site. [Confirm via survey — Assumption — verify]
• Existing improvements: The site forms part of the the subject site pedestrian precinct. The lot is understood to contain hard-paved public domain surfaces, existing seating, tree plantings, and potentially existing kiosk/event infrastructure [Assumption — verify against Council asset register].

2.3 Surrounding Context

the subject site is Sydney's primary civic spine, running east–west between Macquarie Street and George Street. The immediate surrounds comprise:

• North: Commercial tower buildings fronting the subject site — including the Commonwealth Bank of Australia building and associated heritage fabric within the subject site/Hunter Street precinct.
• South: the subject site station (Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains), the Sydney GPO building (now the Fullerton Hotel) at the subject site, and the associated heritage forecourt.
• East: the subject site (Sydney GPO heritage building — State Heritage Register item), Macquarie Street, and the NSW Parliament precinct.
• West: George Street light rail corridor; Pitt Street crossing.

2.4 Heritage Context

Two heritage items are identified in the verified property record as directly associated with the subject lot:

1. Tank Stream tanks and tunnels — The Tank Stream is the original freshwater source that determined the location of European settlement in Sydney in 1788. The underground tanks and tunnels run beneath the the subject site precinct. This item is listed under Sydney LEP 2012, Schedule 5 and is likely also a State Heritage Register item — [Assumption — confirm item number with Heritage NSW].

1. Sydney General Post Office (Sydney GPO) — The Sydney GPO is a significant colonial-era heritage building located on or immediately adjacent to the subject lot. It is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR Item No. [insert — Assumption — verify against Heritage NSW register]) and on Schedule 5 of Sydney LEP 2012.

---

3. Description of the Proposal

> Note: No proposal description was provided by the customer. The following is a working assumption only. The planner must replace this section with the verified project description prior to lodgement.

[Assumption — verify against architectural drawings and project brief]

The proposed development comprises:

• Construction of a permanent commercial kiosk structure within the the subject site pedestrian precinct, with a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately [X] m² [Assumption — verify];
• Internal fitout to accommodate food and beverage preparation and service;
• External seating / outdoor dining area of approximately [X] m² [Assumption — verify];
• Associated landscaping, paving, drainage, and public domain improvements;
• Signage — [describe if proposed — Assumption — verify];
• Hours of operation: [Insert — Assumption — verify; typically 6:00am to 10:00pm seven days a week for CBD kiosks in the subject site];
• Staffing: approximately [X] staff per shift [Assumption — verify];
• No on-site parking is proposed, consistent with the pedestrian-only nature of the site.

---

4. Statutory Planning Framework

4.1 Environmental Planning Instruments — Overview

The following environmental planning instruments apply to the subject site and proposal:

4.2 Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012

4.2.1 Zone — RE1 Public Recreation

The site is zoned RE1 — Public Recreation under Sydney LEP 2012. The objectives of the RE1 zone (cl 2.2) are:

• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes;
• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses;
• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• Permitted without consent (typical): Environmental protection works, recreation areas.
• Permitted with consent (typical, LEP-dependent): Kiosks, markets, recreation facilities (indoor), recreation facilities (outdoor), roads, water supply systems. A "kiosk" is defined in the EP&A Regulation 2021 dictionary as a "small retail establishment selling refreshments or other small consumer items." [Confirm permissibility under Sydney LEP 2012 cl 2.3 land-use table for RE1 — Assumption — verify].
• Prohibited: Development not listed as permitted.

4.2.2 Height of Buildings (Clause 4.3)

The verified property record confirms that no Height of Buildings (HOB) limit is specified for (lot/plan reference redacted) on the Sydney LEP 2012 HOB map. Accordingly, no numerical height standard applies under Clause 4.3.

The proposed structure is single-storey at approximately [X] m to ridge/parapet [Assumption — verify], which is considered low-scale and appropriate to the civic public domain context.

Notwithstanding the absence of a mapped HOB limit, Clause 6.17 (Central Sydney — height) and Clause 6.18 may impose additional height-related controls — see Section 4.2.6 below.

4.2.3 Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4)

The verified property record confirms that no FSR limit is mapped for this lot. No FSR standard applies under Clause 4.4.

The GFA of the proposed kiosk ([X] m² — Assumption — verify) is minor in the context of the site area and does not raise FSR concerns. The planner should confirm this position is consistent with any Central Sydney supplementary provisions.

4.2.4 Heritage Conservation (Clause 5.10)

Clause 5.10 of Sydney LEP 2012 applies because the site contains or is within the curtilage of two heritage items identified in Schedule 5:

1. Tank Stream tanks and tunnels — The scale of heritage significance of the Tank Stream cannot be understated. It is the original water supply of the first European settlement in Sydney. Any ground disturbance, vibration, or change to drainage patterns in proximity to the underground tanks and tunnels must be specifically assessed by a heritage consultant specialising in underground archaeological heritage. A Written Archaeological Assessment and potentially an Archaeological Management Plan will be required before any below-ground works are approved.

1. Sydney General Post Office — Listed on the State Heritage Register. The GPO's significance arises from its architectural, historical, and social values as a major public building of colonial and federation-era New South Wales. The proposed kiosk must not adversely affect the visual curtilage, setting, or prominence of the GPO.

Heritage Council concurrence may be required under section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) if the proposal involves works to or within the curtilage of a State Heritage Register item (the Sydney GPO). [Confirm with Heritage NSW whether a s.60 application is required — Assumption — verify].

4.2.5 Acid Sulfate Soils (Clause 5.20)

The verified property record identifies the subject site as Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS). Under Sydney LEP 2012, Clause 5.20 applies as follows:

• Class 5 ASS relates to land where acid sulfate soils are unlikely to be present except at depths greater than 5 m below the natural ground surface. The risk is materially lower than Class 1–3.
• Consent is not required under Clause 5.20(3) to carry out works on Class 5 land that would not involve groundwater disturbance or works at depth greater than 5 m.

If deeper excavation is required for services, stormwater, or structural footings, a Preliminary Assessment of Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) must be prepared in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual (ACID Management, 1998) and appended to the DA.

4.2.6 Central Sydney Provisions — Clauses 6.17 and 6.18

The verified property record confirms the site is Land Affected by Clauses 6.17 and 6.18 of Sydney LEP 2012.

• Clause 6.17 (Height of Buildings in Central Sydney): This clause applies to land within the Central Sydney area and may impose additional height controls or require design-quality consideration for buildings within the precinct. [The planner must review Cl 6.17 in full against the specific proposal height — Assumption — verify].
• Clause 6.18 (Floor Space Ratio in Central Sydney): This clause may apply supplementary FSR provisions to Central Sydney land. As no mapped FSR applies to this lot, Clause 6.18 may provide a framework or ceiling for any commercial GFA. [The planner must review Cl 6.18 in full — Assumption — verify].

---

5. Development Control Plans

5.1 Sydney DCP 2012

The Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (Sydney DCP 2012) applies to the subject site. Relevant chapters include:

• Part 1 — Introduction: Application and interpretation.
• Part 3 — General development provisions: Includes heritage, design excellence, and public domain controls.
• Part 4 — Specific land uses: Controls for kiosks, food and drink premises, and related commercial uses in public open spaces.
• Part 7 — Signage: Controls for all signage proposed on or adjacent to heritage items and within the public domain. [Signage DCP compliance table to be completed once signage details are confirmed — Assumption — verify].

5.2 DCP Compliance Table (Preliminary)

The following table identifies the key DCP controls applicable to the proposal. All figures marked [Assumption] must be replaced with verified values from the architectural drawings before lodgement.

---

6. Industry and Employment SEPP 2021 — Signage

If the proposal includes any externally visible signage (including identification signage on the kiosk structure or menu boards visible from the public domain), the State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021 (I&E SEPP 2021) applies pursuant to Part 3 of that instrument.

I&E SEPP 2021 replaced SEPP 64 (Advertising and Signage). The following assessment criteria under Clause 3.10 of I&E SEPP 2021 apply:

---

7. Heritage Impact Assessment

7.1 Framework

Heritage impact is assessed under:

• Sydney LEP 2012, Clause 5.10
• Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), including s.60 (State Heritage Register items)
• Sydney DCP 2012, heritage provisions
• NSW Heritage Office, Assessing Heritage Significance (2001)
• The Helou 6-question framework for built heritage assessment

7.2 Helou 6-Question Framework

The following applies the Helou heritage assessment framework, adapted to the public domain / infrastructure context of this site.

Question 1: Does the proposal affect the significant fabric of the heritage item?

Tank Stream: Any ground disturbance has the potential to affect the physical fabric of the Tank Stream's underground tanks and tunnels. The precise location of the underground infrastructure relative to the proposed kiosk footings must be confirmed by a heritage archaeologist using available archival records (State Records NSW, City of Sydney Council asset register, archaeological investigations from prior the subject site works). The proposed development must demonstrate that its physical footprint — including footings, drainage, and services — does not intersect with or vibrate adjacent to Tank Stream infrastructure.

Sydney GPO: The proposed kiosk sits within or proximate to the visual curtilage of the GPO. The significant fabric of the GPO building itself (stonework, portico, clock tower) is not proposed to be altered. The proposal must confirm that no fixings, attachments, or services penetrate GPO fabric.

[Assumption — Heritage Impact Statement to provide detailed fabric impact analysis. This section is a placeholder pending that report.]

Question 2: Does the proposal affect the setting of the heritage item?

the subject site is inseparable from the setting of the Sydney GPO. The GPO's grand Italianate façade was designed to address a formal civic forecourt. Any structure placed within that forecourt — including a kiosk — must:

• Not obstruct principal views of the GPO frontage from the western end of the subject site;
• Be of a scale, form, and material palette that is clearly subservient to the GPO;
• Ideally, be demountable or reversible, allowing the civic forecourt to be restored to its unencumbered state for significant civic events.

Question 3: Does the proposal affect the heritage significance of the item?

The significance of the Tank Stream is archaeological and historical — it represents the foundation point of the Colony of New South Wales. Any development that does not intersect with the underground fabric, does not introduce ground contamination, and does not alter the public interpretation of the Tank Stream (e.g., existing interpretive paving / markers in the subject site) will not diminish its heritage significance.

The significance of the Sydney GPO is architectural, historical, and social. A low-scale, architecturally distinguished kiosk — of restrained contemporary design that does not replicate or pastiche the heritage fabric — could be consistent with the GPO's ongoing civic role in activating the subject site. Conversely, an intrusive, poorly designed, or visually dominant kiosk would be contrary to the public interest in maintaining the GPO's prominence.

Question 4: Is the proposal reversible?

A fundamental heritage principle is reversibility. The proposal should be designed so that the kiosk can be removed without leaving a trace on the public domain or on any heritage fabric. Footings should be surface-mounted or use ground anchors with minimal penetration [Assumption — verify with structural engineer].

Question 5: Does the proposal interpret or reveal heritage significance?

The proposal presents an opportunity to incorporate interpretive elements — for example, marking the footprint of the Tank Stream on the paving, providing QR-code access to archival history, or incorporating design references to the colonial-era water supply infrastructure. This is encouraged as a means of offsetting the imposition on the heritage setting.

Question 6: Does the proposal respect the integrity of the heritage setting?

The integrity of the subject site as a civic precinct — defined by its heritage buildings, formal civic character, and role in the life of the city — must be respected. The proposal must be assessed against the Statements of Significance for both the Tank Stream and the Sydney GPO [Assumption — Statement of Significance to be obtained from Heritage NSW and appended to the HIS].

7.3 Heritage Impact Statement Requirement

A formal Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant (with NSW Heritage Office registration — [Assumption — verify qualifications]), is required as an accompanying document to this DA.

The HIS must address at minimum:

• The heritage significance of both listed items;
• The physical proximity of Tank Stream infrastructure to proposed works;
• Visual impact on the GPO setting;
• Recommendations for design modifications to minimise impact;
• An archaeological research design if any below-ground works are proposed;
• Proposed photographic archival recording.

---

8. Environmental Impacts

8.1 Noise and Acoustic Impacts

Sources of noise from the proposed development:

• Food preparation equipment (refrigeration, exhaust fans, coffee machines);
• Patron activity at outdoor dining;
• Deliveries and waste collection;
• Mechanical ventilation.

The proposal should be accompanied by an Acoustic Assessment prepared in accordance with:

• AS/NZS 2107:2016 — Acoustics — Recommended Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors;
• NSW Environment Protection Authority Noise Policy for Industry 2017;
• Sydney DCP 2012 noise criteria.

8.2 Traffic, Parking, and Access

The site is located within a pedestrian-only precinct (the subject site). No vehicular access to the site is available or proposed from the subject site itself. Deliveries will likely be made via:

• [Specify access route — Assumption — verify with Council; typically via Elizabeth Street or Phillip Street service arrangements];
• Deliveries to be timed outside peak pedestrian periods — typically before 7:00am or after 7:00pm.

• the nearby railway station (Sydney Trains);
• the nearby Metro station (Sydney Metro City & Southwest);
• Multiple bus routes on adjacent streets;
• Cycling infrastructure on adjacent streets.

Bicycle parking: The proposal should provide staff bicycle parking [Assumption — verify rate against Sydney DCP 2012].

8.3 Visual Impact and Urban Design

The visual impact of the proposed kiosk on the the subject site streetscape and the setting of the Sydney GPO is the dominant urban design concern.

Design principles that should be demonstrated in the DA:

1. Visual subservience — the kiosk must not compete in scale, form, or visual weight with the GPO or other heritage buildings on the subject site;
2. Contemporary and restrained design — a high-quality contemporary design is preferred over pastiche; this is consistent with international best practice for insertions within heritage settings;
3. Material palette — use of materials (stone, bronze, weathering steel, or high-quality metal) that complement rather than mimic the GPO stonework;
4. Lightweight form — a pavilion aesthetic is preferred; heavy masonry would be inconsistent with the setting;
5. Transparency — openness and visual permeability through the structure are important to maintain the civic character of the space;
6. Outdoor dining design — seating and furniture to be of a quality commensurate with the civic status of the subject site.

8.4 Social and Economic Impacts

Positive impacts:

• Provides food and beverage activation to one of Sydney's premier civic spaces, supporting daily workers, tourists, and event attendees;
• Contributes to the economic vitality of the Central Sydney precinct, consistent with the Central Sydney Planning Strategy 2036;
• Creates [X] full-time equivalent employment positions [Assumption — verify];
• Enhances the public domain experience and community well-being outcomes of the subject site.

• Temporary construction activity — noise, dust, pedestrian disruption — must be managed via a Construction Management Plan (CMP);
• Waste generation from food preparation — must be managed via a Waste Management Plan;
• Potential for patron congestion during peak events — must be assessed in the context of the broader the subject site precinct activation;
• Risk of obstruction to emergency service access — to be confirmed with City of Sydney Council's emergency management officer [Assumption — verify].

8.5 Contamination

Former land uses at the subject site have been civic/public for the entirety of the post-European-settlement period

Sources & legislation

Every claim in this report is grounded in the following authoritative documents. Click any link to read the in-force version directly.

• EP&A Act 1979 — Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) — Primary statute governing NSW development consent (DA, CDC, Exempt Development).
• EP&A Regulation 2021 — Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) — Regulation under the EP&A Act — DA fees, application requirements, designated and integrated development.
• Codes SEPP 2008 — State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 — Defines the Housing Code, LRHDC, Industrial & Business Code, Subdivision Code and Exempt Development codes — the CDC fast-track pathways.
• Housing SEPP 2021 — State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 — Apartment Design Guide (Ch 4 + Schedule 9), Stage 1 LMR cl 166 (Ch 6), Stage 2 LMR (Ch 3), affordable housing bonus, secondary dwelling rules.
• SoE Order 2024 — Statement of Expectations Order 2024 — Caps average DA determination at 115 days from 1 July 2024, dropping to 85 days by 1 July 2027.
• NSW Planning Portal — NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer — Free property planning report tool — the source document we parse for our analysis.
• SYDNEY LEP — Local Environmental Plan — SYDNEY — Land Use Table, FSR, height of buildings, minimum lot size, heritage and other local controls for SYDNEY.