Architecture Design Studio (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

[2021] NSWLEC 1111

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Architecture Design Studio (NSW) Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1111
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 3 November 2020, 24 November 2020, 10 December 2020, 28 January 2021 and 11 February 2021
Date of orders:	03 March 2021
Decision date:	03 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Peatman AC
Decision:	Refer to orders below at [22]
Catchwords:	MODIFICATION APPLICATION – consent for use as a place of public worship (Islamic Centre) – change to the internal layout – modification application amended – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited:	Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Texts Cited:	Bankstown Development Control Plan 2015
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Architecture Design Studio (NSW) Pty Ltd ABN 90 616 216 196 (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council ABN 45 985 891 846 (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M Sonter (Solicitor) (Applicant) M Bonanno (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (Applicant) Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/250694
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: The Modification Application No. DA-1172/2014/2 (Modification Application) was lodged by the Applicant with the Respondent (Council) pursuant to s 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) which sought the following modification to DA-1172/2014/1 (Consent) for a place of public worship (Islamic Centre)/ Community Centre at 22-24 Auburn Road Regents Park as follows:

1. Consent: Alterations and Additions to existing premises for use as a place of public worship (Islamic Centre).

2. Modification: Change internal layout and associated use of the ground floor (middle level) from social events room, meeting rooms, offices, kitchen and bathrooms to prayer room, classrooms, seating area, play area, canteen, kitchen, offices, meeting rooms and bathrooms.

2. The appeal was lodged in Court by the Applicant on 28 August 2020 pursuant to s 8.9 of the EPA Act.

3. The proceedings fall within Class 1 of the Court jurisdiction pursuant to s 17 (d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).   

4. The Court has power to determine the matter pursuant to s 8.14 of the EPA Act, and ss 34 and 39 of the LEC Act.

Background

5. At the time of the Consent the site was referred to as 22-24 Auburn Road, Regents Park being the whole of the land in Lots 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 Sec 2 in Deposited Plan 715 and Lot 18 in Deposited Plan 706576.

6. After the Consent was granted the land was consolidated into one lot being Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1244570.

7. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, with three road frontages (Gunya Street to the south, Auburn Road to the east, and Corliss Street to the north) with a total area of 5,839m².

8. The site is currently occupied as a place of public worship with ancillary classrooms, office space, social event room, meeting rooms, library and car parking area.   

9. The site is located in an area that has a number of land use zones and land uses transecting:

• To the north of the site exists a small pocket of dwelling houses situated on land which is zoned as R2 Low Density Residential under the Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 (BLEP 2015).

• To the east exists a variety of residential accommodation consisting of dwelling houses, and semi-detached dwellings, which are located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under BLEP 2015. Also to the east is the Regents Park Public School which is zoned SP2 Infrastructure under BLEP 2015.

• To the south of the site there exists a pocket of industrial buildings situated on land which is zoned IN2 Light Industrial under BLEP 2015. Further to the south (directly adjoining the industrial zone) is a large site which is zoned R4 High Density Residential under BLEP 2015, however, this site is currently occupied by older industrial buildings.

• To the west of the site are a number of industrial buildings on land zoned IN2 Light Industrial and the T3 Bankstown rail line which is zoned SP2 Infrastructure as a rail infrastructure facility. 

10. The Modification Application was lodged with the Council on 5 October 2018. It was advertised in accordance with the Bankstown Development Control Plan 2015 (BDCP 2015) for a period of 21 days in the local paper and written notice was also sent to adjoining owners. One objection was received which raised concerns relating to traffic impacts and illegal parking.

11. On 10 March 2020, the Modification Application was determined by way of refusal via delegated authority, citing the following reasons:

“1 The development as modified is not substantially the same development for which the application was originally granted and is therefore inconsistent with clause 4.55 (2) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2 The development as modified is unsatisfactory in respect to the suitability of the site [pursuant to s 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979].

3 The development as modified is not considered to be in the public interest [pursuant to s 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979].”

12. After the appeal was filed the Council served its Statement of Facts and Contentions, and raised the following Contentions (particulars of which are not included here):

1. Substantially the same development: The Modification Application should be refused because the proposed modifications result in a development which is not substantially the same development as the development for which development consent was originally granted.

2. Car parking: The Modification application would result in a higher car parking rate than the original approval, with no additional car parking proposed to be provided.

3. Operating capacity of educational component: The Modification Application would result in a higher maximum operating capacity than the original approval.

4. Inconsistency with the approved Plan of Management: The Modification Application if approved would result in non-compliance with Condition 53 of the Development Consent which required that the development be operated in accordance with the Plan of Management – Operation Plan of Management, dated 27 August 2015, Revision C.

5. The impacts of the Modification Application are not considered acceptable.

6. Site Suitability: The Modification Application would result in a development which is not suitable for the site.

7. Not in the Public Interest. 

13. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 3 November 2020, 24 November 2020, 10 December 2020, 28 January 2021 and 11 February 2021.

14. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court granting leave to amend the Modification Application by removing all reference to change of use, the Court upholding the appeal, and the parties agreeing to the internal layout to be in conformity with the Consent so far as it was substantially the same development, as amended by the Modification.

Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

4.5   Designation of consent authority

For the purposes of this Act, the consent authority is as follows—

(a)  in the case of State significant development—the Independent Planning Commission (if the development is of a kind for which the Commission is declared the consent authority by an environmental planning instrument) or the Minister (if the development is not of that kind),

(b)  in the case of development of a kind that is declared by an environmental planning instrument as regionally significant development—the Sydney district or regional planning panel for the area in which the development is to be carried out,

(c)  in the case of development of a kind that is declared by an environmental planning instrument as development for which a public authority (other than a council) is the consent authority—that public authority,

(d)  in the case of any other development—the council of the area in which the development is to be carried out.

4.15   Evaluation (cf previous s 79C) 

(1) Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application— 

(a)  the provisions of— 

(i)  any environmental planning instrument, and 

(ii)  any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Planning Secretary has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and 

(iii)  any development control plan, and 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 7.4, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 7.4, and 

(iv)  the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), 

(v) (Repealed) 

that apply to the land to which the development application relates, 

(b)  the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, 

(c)  the suitability of the site for the development, 

(d)  any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, 

(e)  the public interest. 

(2) Compliance with non-discretionary development standards—development other than complying development If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary development standards and development, not being complying development, the subject of a development application complies with those standards, the consent authority— 

(a)  is not entitled to take those standards into further consideration in determining the development application, and 

(b)  must not refuse the application on the ground that the development does not comply with those standards, and 

(c)  must not impose a condition of consent that has the same, or substantially the same, effect as those standards but is more onerous than those standards, 

and the discretion of the consent authority under this section and section 4.16 is limited accordingly. 

(3)  If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary development standards and development the subject of a development application does not comply with those standards— 

(a)  subsection (2) does not apply and the discretion of the consent authority under this section and section 4.16 is not limited as referred to in that subsection, and 

(b)  a provision of an environmental planning instrument that allows flexibility in the application of a development standard may be applied to the non-discretionary development standard. 

Note— 

The application of non-discretionary development standards to complying development is dealt with in section 4.28(3) and (4). 

(3A) Development control plans If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority— 

(a)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and 

(b)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application does not comply with those standards—is to be flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the development, and 

(c)  may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that development application. 

In this subsection, standards include performance criteria. 

(4) Consent where an accreditation is in force A consent authority must not refuse to grant consent to development on the ground that any building product or system relating to the development does not comply with a requirement of the Building Code of Australia if the building product or system is accredited in respect of that requirement in accordance with the regulations. 

(5)  A consent authority and an employee of a consent authority do not incur any liability as a consequence of acting in accordance with subsection (4). 

(6) Definitions In this section— 

(a)  reference to development extends to include a reference to the building, work, use or land proposed to be erected, carried out, undertaken or subdivided, respectively, pursuant to the grant of consent to a development application, and 

(b)  non-discretionary development standards means development standards that are identified in an environmental planning instrument or a regulation as non-discretionary development standards. 

4.16   Determination (cf previous s 80) 

(1) General A consent authority is to determine a development application by— 

(a)  granting consent to the application, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, or 

(b)  refusing consent to the application. 

(2)  Despite subsection (1), the consent authority must refuse an application for development, being the subdivision of land, that would, if carried out, result in a contravention of this Act, an environmental planning instrument or the regulations, whether arising in relation to that or any other development. 

… 

(13), (14)  (Repealed) 

4.55   Modification of consents—generally (cf previous s 96) 

…

(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if— 

(a)  it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and 

(b)  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), and 

(c)  it has notified the application in accordance with— 

(i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or 

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and 

(d)  it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. 

Subsections (1), (2) and (5) do not apply to such a modification. 

(2) Other modifications A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if— 

(a)  it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and 

(b)  it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and 

(c)  it has notified the application in accordance with— 

(i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or 

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and 

(d)  it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be. 

Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification. 

(3)  In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified. 

(4)  The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified. 

(5)    (Repealed) 

… 

(6A), (7)    (Repealed) 

(8) Modifications by the Court The provisions of this section extend, subject to the regulations, to enable the Court to modify a consent granted by it but, in the extension of those provisions, the functions imposed on a consent authority under subsection (1A)(c) or subsection (2)(b) and (c) are to be exercised by the relevant consent authority and not the Court. 

8.9   Appeal by applicant—modifications of development consent (cf previous s 97AA)

An applicant for the modification of a development consent who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application by the consent authority may appeal to the Court against the determination.

8.10   Time within which appeals may be made 

(1)  An appeal under this Division (except by an objector) may be made only within the following periods after the relevant date (being the date the decision appealed against is notified or registered on the NSW planning portal or the date of deemed refusal under section 8.11)— 

(a)  6 months after the relevant date, if the relevant date occurs after the prescribed period, or 

(b)  12 months after the relevant date, if the relevant date occurs— 

(i)  during the prescribed period, or 

(ii)  during the 6-month period immediately before the prescribed period. 

(2)  An appeal under this Division by an objector may be made only within the following periods after the relevant date (being the date the objector is notified of the decision appealed against)— 

(a)  28 days after the relevant date, if the relevant date occurs after the prescribed period, or 

(b)  56 days after the relevant date, if the relevant date occurs— 

(i)  during the prescribed period, or 

(ii)  during the 28-day period immediately before the prescribed period. 

(3)  In this section— 

prescribed period means the period commencing on 25 March 2020 and ending on 25 March 2022

8.14   Powers of Court on appeals (cf previous s 39(6A) Land and Environment Court Act)

(1)  In addition to any other functions and discretions that the Court has apart from this subsection, the Court has, for the purposes of hearing and disposing of an appeal under this Division, all the functions and discretions which the consent authority whose decision is the subject of the appeal had in respect of the matter the subject of the appeal.

(2)  The decision of the Court on an appeal under this Division is, for the purposes of this or any other Act or instrument, taken to be the final decision of that consent authority and is to be given effect to accordingly.

…

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

17   Class 1—environmental planning and protection appeals

The Court has jurisdiction (referred to in this Act as “Class 1” of its jurisdiction) to hear and dispose of the following—

…

(d) appeals, objections and applications under sections 4.55, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.16, 8.18, 8.21, 8.22, 8.23 and 8.25 of, and clause 35 of Schedule 5 to, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

…

39   Powers of Court on appeals

(1)  In this section, appeal means an appeal, objection, reference or other matter which may be disposed of by the Court in proceedings in Class 1, 2 or 3 of its jurisdiction.

(2)  In addition to any other functions and discretions that the Court has apart from this subsection, the Court shall, for the purposes of hearing and disposing of an appeal, have all the functions and discretions which the person or body whose decision is the subject of the appeal had in respect of the matter the subject of the appeal.

(3)  An appeal in respect of such a decision shall be by way of rehearing, and fresh evidence or evidence in addition to, or in substitution for, the evidence given on the making of the decision may be given on the appeal.

(4)  In making its decision in respect of an appeal, the Court shall have regard to this or any other relevant Act, any instrument made under any such Act, the circumstances of the case and the public interest.

(5)  The decision of the Court upon an appeal shall, for the purposes of this or any other Act or instrument, be deemed, where appropriate, to be the final decision of the person or body whose decision is the subject of the appeal and shall be given effect to accordingly.

(6)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if an appeal relates to an application made to a council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 or a consent authority within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and that council or consent authority may not approve of, consent to, or deal with, or grant a permission in respect of, the application except after consultation with, or with the concurrence or approval of, any person or body—

(a)  the Court may determine the appeal whether or not the consultation has taken place and whether or not the concurrence or approval has been granted, and

(b)  in a case where the concurrence or approval has been granted—the Court may vary or revoke any conditions imposed by that person or body or may impose any conditions that could have been imposed by that person or body.

(6A)    (Repealed)

(7)  The functions of the Court under this section are in addition to and not in derogation from any other functions of the Court.

(8)  This section (other than subsection (5)) does not apply to proceedings under section 30 or 31 of the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000.

Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015

Zoning of subject land: Zone IN2   Light Industrial

1   Objectives of zone

•  To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

•  To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

•  To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

•  To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

•  To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

2   Permitted without consent

Nil

3   Permitted with consent

Agricultural produce industries; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Depots; Food and drink premises; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Hospitals; Industrial training facilities; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Markets; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Roads; Tank-based aquaculture; Timber yards; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4   Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Biosolids treatment facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Centre-based child care facilities; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Commercial premises; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Function centres; Health services facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Port facilities; Recreation facilities (major); Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Rural industries; Schools; Sewage treatment plants; Signage; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Transport depots; Truck depots; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures; Water recycling facilities; Wharf or boating facilities; Wholesale supplies

Bankstown Development Control Plan 2015

“4.3.1    The following sections apply to the Modification Application in its original form:

i.   Introduction and List of Amendments

ii.   Part B5 Car parking

iii.   Park B8 Places of Public Worship”

15. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties reached an agreement that the scope of the Modification Application is amended to seek consent for only the physical works of the internal layout of the existing building. The Applicant no longer seeks approval for any changes to the use of the premises approved by the Consent and subsequent first modification as part of this Modification Application.

16. The physical works for which approval is now sought are contained in the Modification Application at DA-1172/2014/2, prepared by Architecture Design Studio, accompanied by Drawings A-120-001, A-120-002 and A-120-003 Revision E, also prepared by Architecture Design Studio.

17. The physical works of the internal layout include the following:

1. reconfiguration of the ground floor (middle level of the building) to reduce the size of the social events’ room and reconfigure the internal layout of meeting rooms, offices, kitchen, bathrooms and classrooms;

2. slight reconfiguration of layout of level 1 and provide for an extended kitchen; and

3. the installation of accessible lift access throughout the building.

18. The parties agree that, as the modification only relates to internal works and there is no change to the approved uses, parking arrangements or number of people permitted to use the facility which are governed by the Consent:

1. The modification is substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

2. There is no change to the approved Operational Plan of Management (Condition 53 of the Consent).

3. The proposed change to the use of the facility or the operational capacity of the facility shall be sought under a separate application.

4. The amended Modification Application resolves the Council’s    merit issues.

19. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 8.14 of the EPA Act and s 39 of the LEC Act to grant leave to amend the Modification Application and to grant consent to the amended Modification Application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be as set out above by removing the “use” component of the Modification Application, and also the “operational” component so that the Modification Application satisfied the test of “substantially the same development” (s 4.55 of the EPA Act) and removed the identified merit assessment issues in the Council’s Contentions. As set out above the parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.

20. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

1. The Modification Application was lodged with Council on 5 October 2018, and advertised in accordance with BDCP 2015 for a period of 21 days in the local paper, and sent to adjoining residents. One objection was received raising concerns relating to traffic impacts and illegal parking.

2. On 10 March 2020 the Council determined the Modification Application by way of refusal (s 4.16(1)(b) of the EPA Act).

3. The appeal was lodged in Court by the Applicant on 28 August 2020 in compliance with s 8.9, and the time provisions in s 8.10 of the EPA Act.

4. The Court arranged a s 34 conciliation conference pursuant to s 34(1) of the LEC Act.

5. The Court has power to determine the matter pursuant to s 8.14 of the EPA Act, and ss 34 and 39 of the LEC Act, after taking into account the provisions of s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

6. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the amended Modification Application is of minimal environmental impact, it is substantially the same development as that granted by the Consent, it was notified in accordance with BDCP 2015, and the parties have considered the 1 submission concerning the Modification Application (s 4.5(1A), subss (a), (b), (c) and (d) respectively).

7. The agreement between the parties has satisfied Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 raised by the Council because the amended Modification Application reconfigures the internal layout in conformance with the Consent, and removes the issues of change of use and operational matters.

8. The amended Modification Application conforms to the requirements of Condition 53 of the Consent in that the development will be operated in accordance with the Operation Plan of Management dated 27 August 2015, Revision C (Condition 53 of the Consent).

9. The National Code and Building Code of Australia assessment letter prepared by Design Right Consulting Pty Ltd dated 4 February 2021, ref DRC09-2021, demonstrated that the toilet facilities complied with the Code:

“…is capable of achieving the minimum DTS compliance with the requirements of Clauses F2.1, F2.2 and F2.3 of the National Construction Code, Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2019, Amendment 1, Volume 1, and relevant adopted standards.“

Annexure B hereto is a copy of the letter from Design Right Consulting Pty Ltd dated 4 February 2021 ref: DRC09-2021

21. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

22. The Court orders:

1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend its application to remove the components relating to use and operation of the premises including the updated plan of management proposed and to rely on the following amended plans and documents for the purpose of works to be approved by the subject Modification Application:

Plan Name	Drawing number	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Architectural plans
Lower Ground Floor	A-120-001	E	5 February 2021	Architecture Design Studio
Ground Floor	A-120-002	E	5 February 2021	Architecture Design Studio
First Floor	A-120-003	E	5 February 2021	Architecture Design Studio
Reports
National Construction Code and Building Code of Australia assessment letter prepared by Design Right Consulting dated 4 February 2021

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Modification Application no. DA-1172/2014/2 seeking to modify development consent No. DA-1172/2014 to change the internal layout of the building through the alteration of:

1. reconfiguration of the ground floor (middle level) to reduce the size of the social events room and reconfigure the internal layout of meeting rooms, offices, kitchen and bathrooms and classrooms;

2. slight reconfiguration of layout on level 1 and provide for an extended kitchen; and

3. the installation of accessible lift access throughout the building.

at 22 – 24 Auburn Road, Regents Park is approved, subject to conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

…………………………

M Peatman

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (148261, pdf)

Annexure A (1147902, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 03 March 2021