Artazan Property Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1555

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Artazan Property Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1555
Hearing dates:	16-18 April 2019; 11 June 2019; 25 June 2019; 4 July 2019; 9 September 2019. Submissions 19 September 2019; 20 September 2019
Date of orders:	15 November 2019
Decision date:	15 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Walsh C
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) Leave is granted to amend the application to accord with the plans referenced at Annexure A. (2) Leave is granted to amend the application by way of an amending written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, dated 18 April 2019, in regard to a floor space ratio contravention. (3) The cl 4.6 written request is approved. (4) The appeal is upheld. (5) Development application D/2017/631 for demolition of existing buildings, lot consolidation and construction of new three (3) storey building for hardware and building supplies business with associated signage, car parking, landscaping and remediation at 2-8 & 8A Parsons Street, Rozelle NSW 2039 is approved subject the conditions in Annexure A. (6) The exhibits are returned with the exception of 1, 2, A, and C.
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – Bunnings hardware store – traffic generation – traffic impact – parking demand – residential amenity – economic effects – floor space ratio contravention – cl 4.6 written request – trading hours
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Heritage Act 1977 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land State Environment Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage
Cases Cited:	Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675 Parker Logan Property Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 155 Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80 Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446
Texts Cited:	Leichardt Development Control Plan 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Artazan Property Group Pty Ltd (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M Staunton (Applicant) M Bonanno (Solicitor) (Respondent)   Solicitors: Swaab (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	18/95479
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

Introduction

1. This is a Class 1 appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘EPA Act’) against the deemed refusal by Inner West Council (‘Council’) of Development Application No. D/2017/631. The development application (‘DA’) seeks consent for construction of new three storey building containing a hardware and building supplies use, trading as a Bunnings operation according to the evidence. The site is at 2-8A Parsons Street, Rozelle, legally described as Lot 1 in DP 112073, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in DP986846, Lots 1 and 2 in DP 1081498, Lots 1C, 2C, 516 and 594 in DP752049, Lots A, 8, and C in DP447492 and Lot 12 in DP1082893 (Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply, Ex B).

Site and setting

2. I rely on the Statement of Facts and Contentions (Ex 1), also mindful of the Ex B, for much of the descriptive material in this section of the judgement.

Site

3. The site has an area of some 3,177m². Plans show a frontage of 49.825m to Parsons Street, 38.075m to Mullens Street, 17.56m to Robert Street, and a curved frontage to the Mullens/Robert Street intersection of 49.935m.

4. The site is burdened by two easements on its western boundary, one for a stormwater channel and one to permit an encroaching structure to remain.

5. The site presently accommodates a two-storey masonry industrial building, in a state of disuse at the time of the hearing. The building is located more on the eastern side of the site, with the areas to the south and west of the site being concrete paved and providing for access. A partly open and partly enclosed stormwater channel runs along the western boundary of the site.

Setting

6. The site is located within an industrial precinct containing a variety of industrial, warehouse and associated land uses.

7. To the south of the site, across Robert Street, is the former White Bay Power Station, which is a heritage item of State significance listed under the Heritage Act 1977. To east, on the opposite side of Mullens Street, is a brick warehouse building and an adjoining 1-2 storey car trading business.

8. Adjoining the site to the west is a 3-4 storey warehouse building used for storage. Another large-format industrial (or similar) use is located further to the west on the southern side of Parsons Street. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Parsons Street, is a two storey building containing small industrial / warehouse units.

9. Further along Parsons Street to the west is a grouping of one and two storey residences. This is the start of a residential precinct (which abuts and runs to the north from the site’s industrial precinct) comprising fairly tightly spaced housing, usually one or two storey and often attached.

The proposal

10. In the course of the hearing, the applicant sought and was granted leave to amend the application. The proposal before the court can be summarised as follows:

• Demolition of all existing structures.

• Construction of a three storey building to be used for hardware and building supplies comprising:

1. Ground floor - containing the main pedestrian entrance and associated access ramps and lifts, BBQ area, pump room, detention tank and services, landscaping works, heritage interpretation, street tree planting, vehicular access from Parsons Street, car parking for 74 cars, bicycle and motorcycle parking.

2. First floor warehouse - containing goods display and sales area, loading areas with associated vehicle turntable, and goods receiving area.

3. Second floor warehouse - containing goods display and sales area, nursery area with sail shading above, office area, staff area, and amenities area/toilets.

• Building gross floor area of 4,044m².

• Maximum height of 15.77m.

• The building would be constructed to the northern, southern and eastern boundaries with the accessway provided along the western boundary.

• Site signage as indicated on plans.

• Hours of operation 6am to 10pm Mondays to Fridays and 6am to 7pm Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays – however the applicant made submissions in the hearing to modify these hours.

Statutory framework

11. The site is located within the IN2 – Light Industrial zone, under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (‘LEP’). The proposal is “permissible with consent” in this zone.

12. While other aspects of the LEP come up in evidence, the site is subject to a floor space ratio (FSR) standard of 1.0:1. An FSR of 1.27:1 was proposed. In accordance with cl 4.6 of the LEP, the application is accompanied by a written submission seeking to justify the contravention.

13. Neither the site, nor development upon it, is listed as a heritage item. However, the site is located within “The Valley Heritage Conservation Area” under the LEP and is therefore subject to cl 5.10 (“Heritage Conservation”).

14. The proposal is subject to various provisions of Leichardt Development Control Plan 2013 (‘DCP’) which are considered relevantly below.

Existing consent

15. By way of background, I note that an existing consent was given some considerable attention in the evidence, including in regard to the FSR contravention. Pertinent particulars are as follows (Ex 1):

• Development Application D/2012/62 was lodged with Council on 14 February 2012 for the demolition of existing building and construction of a new industrial building, including six (6) industrial units, gymnasium and basement level car park and associated works, including bulk excavation and remediation of the site. Deferred Commencement Consent was granted to the application on 17 July 2012.

• The approval to Development Application D/2012/62 was modified and made operational on 12 November 2012 (M/2012/142).

• The approval to Development Application D/2012/62 was further modified on 1 April 2014 (M/2013/204) to provide for certain internal and external modifications including provision of a tri-generation plant.

• The FSR as approved with M/2013/204 came to some 1.57:1. While this was an increase to the prior approval (1.34:1), the changes embodied in M/2013/204 would be contained wholly within the approved building and would “not alter (the approved building) in height form bulk or scale” (Council assessment report, delegation signed 21/3/2014 (not paginated), Ex N)

Lay submissions

16. Prior to the hearing, the parties participated in conciliation commencing in accordance with s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (‘LEC Act’) at which I presided. The conciliation commenced on 13 September 2018, with a site view and the hearing of submissions from lay objectors. A total of six persons spoke (five objecting to the proposal and one person speaking in favour). There were a substantial number of additional people in attendance, supporting the objectors. While the parties obviously were unable to reach agreement, and the conciliation conference was terminated, the parties consented to lay submissions heard on site forming part of the evidence in these proceedings. In addition, three further objectors spoke in Court at the commencement of the hearing. The submissions are considered below.

Issues

17. Council’s amended statement of facts and contentions (Ex 1) listed five contentions and raised certain geotechnical and land contamination questions as matters for which further information was required. By the commencement of the hearing, contentions relating to flooding and stormwater were resolved by way of design changes and expert input, and the requested “further information” had been satisfactorily supplied in regard to land contamination questions, and conditions agreed in regard to remediation requirements.

18. Ultimately, the issues before the Court can be summarised as follows:

1. Whether the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on the local traffic system.

2. Contravention of the LEP’s FSR standard – this issue was not a contention raised by Council but nonetheless it brings a certain jurisdictional test which I need to consider. I mention here that I advised the parties that I saw this issue as “live” in the course of the proceedings, and in turn the applicant submitted an amended written submission under cl 4.6 of the LEP in regard to the contravention which is considered below.

3. Trading hours.

4. Other issues raised in lay submissions, which can be summarised as: amenity impacts (including in regard to traffic, noise, visual/streetscape character effects, odours and lack of open space), overdevelopment/excessive size, impact on local businesses (partly related to trading hours), effects of increased traffic and congestion on public transport and emergency services, flooding, contamination, pollution and decreased property values. I will mention here that the oral submission in support of the application (while also agreeing with some of the concerns raised in other lay submissions) made observations on the closing down of local hardware stores in the recent past, and saw the proposal as bringing potential convenience for local people doing renovations and the like.

19. Traffic, as the central technical issue under scrutiny in the hearing, was the subject of considerable quantities of empirical research and expert evidence. Traffic evidence was provided to the Court by B Lo for the applicant and J Bertacco for the Council. This topic is considered first, as the findings are relevant to the consideration of the jurisdictional question before the Court (FSR contravention), which is considered next. Attention to other issues follow.

Traffic

20. Council’s traffic-related concerns can be summarised as follows: (1) negative impacts on local traffic system (here I also consider traffic-related amenity concerns), (2) inadequate parking and (3) inadequate loading and unloading arrangements.

Impacts on local traffic system

21. The applicant acknowledged that this development would have certain traffic-related impacts, as (it was argued by the applicant) would any reasonable development of the site. The current approval applying to the site (explained at [15]) was seen to provide its own evidence of this. The question, according to the applicant, is whether the impacts are, in this case, acceptable.

22. There was considerable attention given to three distinct topics: (1) expected traffic generation of the development, (2) capacities of existing network to accommodate expected new traffic; with the ultimate point of attention the capacity of the Parsons/Mullins Street intersection to accommodate the additional traffic, and (3) residential amenity implications of additional traffic.

23. It is common practice to examine peak events in such traffic analysis and there was evidence and general agreement that the busiest period of Bunnings trade occurred during weekend peaks by some margin, and this weekend peak event was the point of attention in much of the factual material below. However, weekday AM and PM peaks were also in contention and subject to analysis (including the consideration of the variance between the road network peaks and the store trading peaks).

Expected traffic generation

24. The predictors of traffic generation for the site considered in the evidence might be categorised into three: (1) supply side predictors of traffic (in particular considering gross floor area (GFA) of the outlet, and product/service offerings (in particular the attraction to professional tradespersons), (2) demand side predictors (eg considering geographic sales catchments and relevant competition), and (3) proposed or induced constraints (eg specific conditions imposed by regulators or adopted by proponents). While there is some overlap, the content below seeks to summarise factual material on this basis.

Supply side predictors of traffic

25. The applicant provided four points of analysis of GFA-centred traffic generation analysis over time. The first three involved responses to points of concern raised by Council. The fourth point of the analysis, as explained below, was at the request of the Court.

26. The starting point was the “RMS Technical Direction 2013/04a: Guide to Traffic Generating Developments – Updated Traffic Survey” (Ex U), which includes traffic generation data for a selection of “major hardware and building supply stores” of different GFA. This first stage of traffic analysis by the applicant, adopted an averaged traffic generation for the five metropolitan stores for which data was collected by RMS and applied this averaged rate to the proposal. As indicated in the initial joint report from the traffic experts (Ex 2 p16), the adopted GFA rate for the proposal was 4183m² (I need to note here that the actual GFA as indicated in the plans (Ex C), and not disputed by Council, is 4044m² – this difference is not material beyond noting that the GFA adopted by the traffic experts is a conservative one to a very slight extent). Second, at the request of Council (seeking to ensure there was data on traffic generation from comparable stores), the applicant undertook traffic studies of Bunnings Kent Town (located in the inner suburbs of Adelaide), a 4120m² GFA store. The applicant had indicated that there were no comparable stores in inner metro Sydney. It was the Kent Town data, appropriately scaled, which formed the basis of the applicant’s GFA-based traffic generation work. A third analysis involved a closer examination of the RMS hardware store data. Generation figures for the hardware stores with GFAs closest to that proposed at Rozelle were analysed (GFAs: 9800m², 2400m² and 1800m²) and subject to regression analysis to predict generation rates for Rozelle at its agreed GFA.

27. The comparable figures are produced in the table below (Transport and Traffic Planning Associates, March 2019, Ex G, p16).

Basis	Weekday AM peak – vehicle trips per hour	Weekday PM peak – vehicle trips per hour	Weekend Peak – vehicle trips per hour
RMS data from 5 metro sites (averaging)	70	113	223
RMS data from 3 more applicable sites (regression analysis)	77	116	213
Kent Town data	93	105	227

28. While the applicant’s analysis adopted the data from Kent Town, Mr Bertacco remained concerned about its appropriateness. According to Mr Bertacco a preferred approach would have been to extrapolate out from the data used for assessment of the Bunnings proposals at Tempe (agreed as some 20,000m²) and Maitland (agreed as some 12,000m²), involving stores of significantly larger GFA (approximately 5x and 3x the GFA proposed at Rozelle, respectively). It did not seem to me that comparisons with these much larger stores were on point in this instance, accepting the point of Mr Lo that there were significantly different visitor experiences available at such stores.

29. But the question of the selection of appropriate hardware stores for traffic generation modelling gained further attention within the hearing itself. On 11 June 2019, I reserved my decision in regard to the case.  But on reflecting on certain closing submissions from Mr Bonanno on that date, in regard to the applicability of Kent Town, and particulars in Ex O (a sworn statement from a Mr Boyce of Bunnings) in regard to other existing Bunnings stores; I decided to re-open the case on 12 June 2019 to allow for further interrogation of traffic generation and parking expectations. Mr Bonanno’s submission and the material at Ex O seemed to open up to a suggestion that there may be equally, or more, direct factual material to assist in making findings on traffic and parking. I approached the parties to advise that the Court would be willing to receive further evidence in regard to whether and how traffic generation/parking demand as experienced at other comparable small format stores may further assist the Court in understanding likely traffic generation/parking demand aspects of the proposal; and the proposed response as embodied in plans and agreed conditions. After the parties agreed to provide further evidence, I relied on the traffic experts to agree to further comparable Bunnings stores for examination and undertake that examination.

30. The further traffic report (Ex V) was filed on 28 August 2019. The experts agreed that Bunnings Fairfield and Lilydale (both in Victoria) were comparable to the proposed Rozelle store (ibid, p2). Mr Bertacco was also of the view that Bunnings Artarmon (in Sydney) was comparable to Rozelle. Mr Lo disagreed in regard to Artarmon. The data that was collected focused on the critical peak weekend period. Data was collected for the three stores, and compared to Kent Town. The most appropriate way to compare the data was based on vehicle trips per hour (vtph) per 100m² of area. On this bases the peak traffic generation (weekend) for the various stores was summarised as follows (Ex V, p2).

Store	Area	Peak Traffic Generation Rate
Fairfield, Vic	4,117m2	5.81 vtph per 100m2
Lilydale, Vic	5,405m2	4.81 vtph per 100m2
Artarmon, NSW	5,681m2	11.90 vtph per 100m2
Kent Town, SA	4,120m2	5.42 vtph per 100m2

31. The experts agreed that the peak traffic generation rates for Fairfield and Lilydale where similar to Kent Town (ie the baseline for the predictions adopted by the applicant for the subject proposal), but Mr Bertacco remained concerned that there were prospects that “Rozelle could well trade beyond expectations like Artarmon and result in undesirable traffic and parking circumstance” (ibid, p3).

32. Mr Lo believed there was a logical explanation for the Artarmon store trading at the higher levels and this was concerned with the geographic catchment. Maps were provided in the evidence, with the experts defining approximate Bunnings store catchments, and it was apparent that Artarmon did have a relatively large geographic area for a smaller format store.

31. The graphic presentation of these maps, with the approximations of store catchment boundaries agreed, was not of a high standard but it is important and is reproduced below (Bunnings stores are marked with a hammer shape). It indicates the relatively large size of the Artarmon store catchment (Map 1) and how that catchment would vary with the development of the proposed new store at Gladesville (Map 2). Map 2 also provide an indicator of the Rozelle store catchment.

34. Further on the supply side, Mr Lo submitted that the Kent Town store did include a loading area for tradespersons (seen as an indicator of higher traffic generation) whereas the Rozelle store would not.

Demand side predictors

35. Mr Bertacco noted the different population density for the local government area (LGA) within which the Kent Town store was located when compared to Rozelle. Inner West Council (within which Rozelle is located) is indicated to have a population density of 56.3 persons/ha whereas the City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters (which accommodates Kent Town) is indicated as having a population density of 24.22 persons/ha (Ex 2, p17). It is also indicated there were over twice as many building approvals in Inner West LGA.

36. Mr Lo believed a better indicator was “household catchment reach” (as adopted by Bunnings it was suggested) which was defined by households located within a 10 minute drive. Mr Lo’s evidence, uncontested, was that Kent Town actually has a greater number of households within the perceived 10 minute driving catchment (99,662 for Kent Town v 53,721 for Rozelle – Ex G, p17) and that there were relatively similar proportions of populations exceeding a defined low income threshold (around ¾ of households exceeding income levels of $42,000 suggested as an indicator of economic means (ibid)). Mr Lo also indicated that each of the catchments would have the equivalent number of (competing) stores within this 10 minute drive catchment (5 stores), and both Kent Town and Rozelle sites are in the vicinity of arterial roads that carry daily traffic in the order of 80,000 to 90,000 vehicles per day (ibid).

37. Mr Bonanno gave some concentration to a concern in regard to tradespersons attending the proposed Rozelle outlet, notwithstanding the lack of specialised access (loading) facilities. His key point here was proximity to the Sydney CBD. As the maps above indicate this proximity is undeniable. However Mr Lo believed that customised access (drive-in and pick-up) was a critical service offering for tradespersons. Tradespersons working in the city would be more inclined to use Bunnings Alexandria according to Mr Lo.

Induced constraints

38. Two (agreed, without prejudice) conditions of consent are relevant here. The first prevents the proposal’s loading dock being used for drive-in and pick-up by customers. This is seen as using regulation to restrict the extent to which the outlet would be used by tradespeople (see above). The second is concerned with constraining deliveries to the site and limits deliveries by trucks in two ways: (1) deliveries to the site would be restricted to medium rigid vehicle (MRV) size 8.8m (Ex L) (this means no higher capacity large rigid vehicles, such as LRVs at 12.5m as previously proposed, would deliver to the site) and (2) the number of MRV deliveries would be limited to 15 per weekday except over Christmas where 20 per weekday would be permitted. These regulatory constraints mean, if approved, the outlet could not expand or intensify beyond these restrictions without development consent.

Findings in regard to traffic generation

39. The traffic experts have been given considerable opportunity to bring fulsome evidence in regard to the question of expected traffic generation for the outlet, including after re-opening the hearing to allow further interrogation of the question. There are now three Bunnings stores with similar profile to the proposal which seem to confirm the reasonableness of the traffic generation profile adopted by Mr Lo, with Kent Town as the accepted model generally presenting as a conservative option when these three stores are compared, (and when considering the RMS modelling more generally). The outlier is in regard to Artarmon, and it is a significant outlier. Mr Bertacco’s concern is not that trading at Rozelle might be similar to Artarmon, but of the suggestion that it signals that there are risks that Rozelle, like Artarmon might over-trade (when compared to Kent Town, Fairfield and Lilydale). While noting his concerns (centred, I think on Sydney’s inner west setting being different in some basic way from the comparisons) there was not sufficient evidence brought to support that position. Here I acknowledge the higher proportions of higher income households for Rozelle, but any pertinence of this was not drawn out in evidence. I also do not see the building approvals for the two LGAs as particularly useful indicators given that store retail catchments obviously straddle such boundaries.

40. There was evidence brought by Mr Lo that the comparisons to Kent Town were relatively strong in regard to retail catchment, baseline spending capacity (although this comparison somewhat limited), and similar high levels of traffic in close proximity (State Road arterial routes – Ex G, p17). There was also an explanation provided of why Artarmon was an outlier and the map below [33] satisfies me that the Artarmon circumstances are not evident here, given the alternative Bunnings stores available at Ashfield and Gladesville (under construction) in particular. That is to say there are logical limits which seem to narrow the catchment when compared to Artarmon. It is reasonable to accept the traffic generation rates adopted by the applicant.

41. I am also satisfied that Mr Bonanno’s concerns in regard to the potential for high levels of trade custom is addressed through the site layout and conditions of consent which would mean tradesman would not be able to access specialised loading facilities (available at other outlets). I note Mr Bonanno’s comment that “if the market demands a store that services trades, the market will prevail” (Respondent’s Closing Submission (‘RCS’), [21]). Mr Bonanno refers to the potential for a further consent to allow use of the proposed deliveries dock, for loading purposes by tradespersons. Respectfully, I cannot accept either proposition here. It seems to me that the laws relating to planning and approvals are often concerned with moderating the raw effects of the market. The conditions imposed in consents must be reasonably seen as enforceable, and in regard to tradesperson services, I cannot see why the restrictions proposed with this consent would not be so.

Capacity to accommodate extra traffic

42. There was considerable evidence on the wider network factors involved in the analysis of traffic impacts in the material before the Court. Much of this material does not warrant further interrogation in this judgement, as these factors naturally underpin what was the essential traffic impact question for the proposal, and the central point of examination on the topic during the hearing. This was the expected performance of the Mullins/Parsons Street intersection, and the implications of low levels of performance at this intersection. The experts and parties seemed to generally agree that two questions raised in the first traffic joint expert report (Ex 2, p4) adequately summarised the potential impacts:

“… it is agreed that the critical consideration for the Bunnings impact is therefore (1) whether the Bunnings traffic will have such an adverse impact on the operation of the Parsons Street/Mullins Street (intersection) that the majority of customers would use the local residential streets to access the store; and (2) whether the Bunnings traffic will extend the Parsons Street queue to the extent that customers will no longer be able to enter/exit the driveway freely.”

SIDRA modelling

43. The fundamental difference between the experts was whether the Mullins/Parsons intersection’s performance could be assumed to operate on the basis of the applicant’s traffic modelling, with Mr Bertacco concerned about the modelling accuracy “in real life conditions”. There is no dispute that the SIDRA model used by Mr Lo is very commonly used by road authorities and consent authorities for intersection congestion modelling and analysis, or that the intersection’s operation is satisfactory, as modelled under SIDRA using the inputs determined above (noting the experts’ contested position in regard to traffic generation expectations which I have made a determination in regard to above).

44. To augment the analysis, the applicant also provided modelling based on a 30% traffic uplift factor on top of the “Kent Town-based” data. The experts agreed that this further SIDRA modelling was helpful. This 30% factor would bring the test rate for traffic generation at peak to 7.03vtph per 100m² (and again, according to Mr Lo, would suggest modelling is based on a conservative position).

45. A summary of the outcome of the SIDRA modelling is reproduced in the table below (Ex 11 – see note below).

Movement	Average delay (max)	Level of Service (‘LoS’)	Queue length = 95th percentile (m)
Existing conditions	Left turn Right turn	15.4s 17.5s	B B	0.6m 1.2m
Existing + proposal (based on Kent Town)	Left turn Right turn	19.8s 24.0s	B B	5.1m 10.7m
Existing + proposal (based on KT) + 30% Town)	Left turn Right turn	23.0s 36.0s	B C	6.7m 19.1m

Note: the data above was sourced from the SIDRA tables at Appendix 5 to Ex 11. There were some transcription errors in the summary table at p8 to Ex 11.

46. Mr Lo noted that even with a 30% uplift factor the level of service of the intersection was satisfactory (this was not disputed by Mr Bertacco with LoS C normally considered “satisfactory” in SIDRA modelling, as noted for example in the Class 1 Application traffic report Ex A, Tab 12, p13). While it may be deemed “satisfactory”, the additional (modelled) queuing and waiting periods, when compared to now, are noted. Similarly, according to modelling the 95th percentile queue lengths would not block the Bunnings driveway (setback 30m from the intersection). Mr Lo also undertook a first principles analysis to compare available turning space out of Parsons Street into Mullins Street (noting what he described as the “platoons” of traffic flow and subsequent lulls, in particular moving northbound from Victoria Road) and the projected peak 35 left turns and 63 right turns out of Parsons during the peak hour weekend event. He indicated how this first principles analysis aligned with the SIDRA modelling output.

“Real life”

47. Mr Bertacco’s concern is that “in real life” there will be more long queues at the Mullins/Parsons intersection than shown in the model. He believes these queues will sometimes extend beyond the vehicle entrance to Bunnings; but even were they not to, the queuing would sometimes result in Bunnings customers exiting to the left, using the local street system rather than the Mullins/Parsons intersection.

48. The analysis of existing networks is commonly based on traffic counts, something certainly undertaken here. However, in this instance, this analysis also involved the videoing of the Mullins/Parsons intersection to better understand implications for a peak weekend event. The videoing occurred on three occasions. The first occasion was undertaken by Council and occurred on Saturday 24 November 2018. The information which might be gathered from this video had some question marks over it according to the applicant, in regard to representativeness and verifiability with technical counts. Nonetheless, Mr Bertacco provided a series of screenshots which showed long queues on Mullins Street extending beyond Parsons Street which spoke for themselves (Ex 2 Appendix 17). It was agreed that further work would be undertaken with video and associated traffic and queue counts on Saturday 11 May 2019 between 11am and 1pm. Back-up video and counts were also taken on 18 May, which were verifiable and indicated a good degree of consistency. This data indicated lower levels of congestion than had been indicated in the video for 24 November 2018. I accept the evidence of Mr Lo that there were no evident anomalies on either 11 or 18 May 2019 that would suggest the data collected on these days was other than representative of typical events (Ex 11, p12). The data collected on 11 and 18 May is more complete, and with full respect to Mr Bertacco, there has simply not been an ability to provide the same assurances in regard to whether or not some atypical circumstance was behind the 24 November 2018 video (Mr Lo evidences certain anomalies in the 24 November data and suggests potential reasons for this (at p11 of Ex 11).

49. Mr Bertacco highlighted issues with the 11 May data based on current settings. Most notable for me were: (1) seven occurrences when northbound queues on Mullins Street extended beyond the Parsons Street intersection, (2) five occurrences of delays of over 28 seconds for right turn out of Parsons Street, and (3) five occurrences where two vehicles were queued to exit Parsons Street. As pointed out by Mr Bertacco, this is pertinent having regard to the SIDRA modelling which suggest that even after the new Bunnings traffic, the 95th percentile queue would only be three vehicles (Ex 11, p10). Mr Lo’s responses to these points were essentially that over the two hour measurement period there were many periods where vehicles had short queues and waiting periods and thus good clearance levels.

50. I note as well I was invited to view this video by the parties, and have done so. While generally this is a matter for the experts, it was observable, consistent with the view of the experts, that there was a platooning effect of traffic flows and instances of gaps, and occasional short periods where Parsons Street egress was blocked. The traffic setting did not seem so severe to me, at present, during the middle of the day on Saturday, but this does not at all account for what might occur with a Bunnings development on the corner. In general I found the analysis by the experts much more useful than my own interpretation of the video.

Local residential amenity and “environmental capacity”

51. In regard to consideration of the question of impact on local residential amenity, a contention of Council was that the “environmental capacity” of local streets as defined in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments should be referenced.

52. The RMS Guide indicates that local streets have an environmental capacity of 300 vehicles per hour (Ex 2, Appendix 12). The experts agreed that even if all the traffic exiting Bunnings and intending to turn right at Parsons Street were to divert to the local streets then the RMS environmental capacity standards would not be exceeded (Ex L, p4). Mr Bertacco’s point in the hearing seemed to be more general and that there would be increased traffic flows in Mansfield and Crescent Streets, as a consequence of the proposal, and thus impacts on locals, whether or not RMS environmental capacity standards were met.

Findings in regard to local traffic impacts

53. While there is good sense in the querying of “black box” approaches to environmental analysis, I do acknowledge the development and widespread use of the SIDRA model by traffic experts and authorities over many years. Traffic analysis is commonly far from perfect, but the fact of the continuing adoption of SIDRA suggests to me that it has a degree of credibility and thus usefulness, in regard to the fine analysis required here. I have already made findings in terms of traffic generation, or the data that would be factored into the model.

54. I turn to the model’s findings versus what might be reasonably assumed as “real life” effects of the proposal in traffic terms. As inferred above, I prefer Mr Lo’s evidence that the averaging process adopted in the model gives an adequate picture. I agree with Mr Bertacco that there will be irregularities in both network flows and future Bunnings traffic itself, which will mean longer queues from time to time, but it follows there will also be periods, during the peak, when queues will be shorter. There will be occasions where traffic will use the local street system, and that this will bring effects. The question to consider is to what extent this is likely and the reasonableness of this occurrence.

55. In regard to likelihood, what I have is the SIDRA modelling summarised at [45]. This tells its own story. I am also aware that these are averages and I expect there will be occasions when the effects are understated and that some customers do decide to use local streets. Likewise, the circumstances presented at [25] will sometimes be overstated, and queues and waits will sometimes be shorter than stated. On the evidence, there will not be a systematic or default position where a high proportion of traffic visiting the store will use the local street system over the Mullins/Parsons intersection.

56. There are four factors that cause me to think the effects of Bunnings traffic using the local streets, as that might be understood from the evidence before the Court, would not be unreasonable. The first is the RMS “environmental capacity” framework. This framework implies a baseline local street capacity which, on the agreed evidence, could not be exceeded with the proposal (here I am mindful that conditions have been imposed limiting the size of trucks used for delivery and which streets they are to use and restricting deliveries to between 7am and 6pm on weekdays (no weekend/public holiday deliveries). The second is the local planning setting. The subject land is zoned IN2 Light Industrial, which brings certain expectations in regard to impact potential for nearby land. But more important in regard to the planning setting is the identification of the subject site in particular for “increased building scale” in the DCP (explained further below [73]. The third is the existing consent which applies to the site [15], which the applicant indicates as being operational (uncontested by Council). The evidence suggests that associated development would involve significantly higher weekday AM and PM peaks at times when flows in Mullens Street are higher (when considering the Bunnings peak is mid weekend when Mullens Street flows are lower in relative terms - details at Ex A, Tab 12, p9 and following). The point here is that the approved development would bring its own risks in regard to use of local streets. The fourth factor goes to the point of balancing adverse and positive effects. That is, in the face of the future additional local traffic (albeit considerably within anticipated environmental flows for such streets) weight also needs to be given to the convenience afforded to the public through the provision of the hardware store itself (ie reduced need to travel so far for the services offered).

57. At this point I can also indicate that I am satisfied that the Council’s contentions in regard to swept paths, truck turning movements and passing, which had originally been derived on the basis of the then proposed 12.5m heavy rigid vehicles, are satisfactorily overcome with the restrictions on such vehicles attending the site (via conditions). I am satisfied on the evidence that the now required MRVs can make such movements satisfactorily.

Parking

58. The contest here is in regard to the applicable parking rate. The DCP does not have a specific rate for hardware stores. The DCP rate for Industrial Retail/Shops required under Section C1.11.1 is 1 space per 50m². Mr Bertacco notes that this generally accords with the peak parking demand as surveyed for the larger format Bunnings stores. In Ex 11, p24 he provides a table which shows peak parking for five Bunnings stores with floor areas between 8106m² and 18,860m², all of which come in around the 1 space per 50m² (or for comparative purposes 2 spaces per 100m² – see below).

58. Mr Lo, as previously argued, believes there is a different customer experience for the larger format stores and customers stay longer in general, and that the parking rates for these stores are not comparable. Mr Lo used the parking rates for Kent Town and the RMS survey material for comparable stores. The surveyed peak rates were 1.55 spaces per 100m² for Kent Town and 1.77 spaces per 100m² for the RMS small area stores (Ex 11 p 23). The higher rate was adopted for Rozelle (Rozelle GFA 4183m² at 1.77/100m² = 74 spaces).

59. My conclusion in regard to parking is aligned to that of traffic generation. That is, that the Rozelle store needs to be differentiated from the larger format stores, and that more comparable stores are available. The additional analysis of comparable stores invited by the Court included parking comparisons. The table below reproduces the data collected and indicates that the Rozelle parking provision of 1.77 spaces per 100m² is reasonable in the circumstances (Ex V, p3).

Store	Area	Peak Parking Demand Rate
Fairfield	4,117m2	1.66 spaces per 100m2
Lilydale	5,405m2	1.44 spaces per 100m2
Kent Town	4,120m2	1.55 spaces per 100m2
Rozelle	4,183m2	1.77 spaces per 100m2

61. I note that the Artarmon counts indicated a peak parking demand of 3.5 spaces per 100m², however I have already found that this store is not comparable.

Deliveries

62. Mindful of the applicant’s agreement to restrictions on deliveries as indicated above, the key outstanding issue here was in regard to the proposed turntable. I am satisfied with the retention of the turntable as a facility of convenience for the use of the site, notwithstanding that the largest vehicles to attend the site (MRVs) can make turning movements without it.

Jurisdictional issue – contravention of floor space ratio development standard

63. The proposal contravenes the FSR standard in the LEP. The map associated with cl 4.4 of the LEP provides a maximum FSR control of 1.0:1 for the site. An FSR of 1.27:1 is proposed.

64. Clause 4.6(2) of the LEP (and in accordance with other “standard instrument” LEPs) permits a consent authority to grant development consent for development even though that development would contravene a development standard. These permissive powers are subject to conditions. If the conditions are not satisfied there is no jurisdiction to approve a contravening development (Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [13]) (Initial Action). The approach to the use of cl 4.6 was given comprehensive consideration by the Preston CJ in Initial Action, and frames the analysis below.

65. I note here that the Council did not raise the FSR contravention in its contentions (Ex 1). However, as discussed in the particulars below, the permissive powers enlivening jurisdiction to approve contravening development involve the Court making its own determination in regard to the satisfaction of certain conditions. This determination, and the analysis behind it, is provided below.

Jurisdictional test

66. Clause 4.6 of the LEP provides, relevantly, as follows:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

67. The Court must form two positive opinions of satisfaction under cl 4.6(4)(a) to enliven the power under cl 4.6(2) to grant development consent: Initial Action at [14]. The first opinion is in regard to the applicant’s written request, and whether it has adequately addressed the two matters required to be demonstrated at cl 4.6(3). The second opinion requires me to make my own finding of satisfaction that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objective of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)). The written request is considered below.

68. I note here, mindful of cl 4.6(4)(b), there is no requirement for me to seek or assume the concurrence of the Secretary (under s 39(6) of the LEC Act), but nonetheless I would mention that I do not see this matter as raising any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Clause 4.6 written request

69. The applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard was prepared by Perica and Associates. Two documents were indicated as forming the written request. The first was dated 15 April 2019, and was tendered on the first day of the hearing. However in the course of the hearing, after I had indicated to the parties that I saw the issue of FSR as a live issue, leave was granted (without objection from the Council) for the application to rely on an additional written request (dated 18 April 2019). The hearing’s “Exhibit H” comprised both documents, and I have given consideration to both, noting that the major differences between the two written requests were various points of supplementary material provided in the latter document. For purposes here I will refer to the two documents as Ex H-15/4 and Ex H 18/4, respectively.

70. The written request needs to satisfy the Court in regard to both of the following tests:

1. that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (cl 4.6(3)(a)), and;

2. that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (cl 4.6(3)(b)).

Compliance unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

71. The written request uses the first “way” established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446 (Wehbe) to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. That is, that the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the standard are provided at cl 4.4(1) of the LEP, and are as follows:

4.4 Floor space ratio

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that residential accommodation:

(i)  is compatible with the desired future character of the area in relation to building bulk, form and scale, and

(ii)  provides a suitable balance between landscaped areas and the built form, and

(iii)  minimises the impact of the bulk and scale of buildings,

(b)  to ensure that non-residential development is compatible with the desired future character of the area in relation to building bulk, form and scale.

72. Here, the operative component of the clause is 4.4(1)(b). I find that the written request adequately demonstrates that the (relevant) objective of the standard is achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. Therefore, and in accordance with Wehbe, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. There are two lines of explanation behind my conclusion.

73. The first point of explanation is to find that the written request demonstrates that the proposed building is visually compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area. It provides a comparison of the height, bulk and scale of the proposed building with other industrial and commercial buildings in the near visual catchment, such as the warehouse building next door to the west, two storey commercial/light industrial building immediately across Parsons Street, the taller building to the east across Mullens Street and the former White Bay power station (much taller), demonstrating visual compatibility. The written request also examines DCP provisions in relation to desired future character (DFC). There is first attention to the DFC statement for the wider Rozelle suburb, where visual compatibility is argued. Then the written request turns to the DFC character statement for the “Roberts Street Distinctive Neighbourhood”, which refers to the industrial precinct within which the site falls. It includes provisions (at C9) which would “allow” for increased building scale and “especially at the corner of Mullens and Roberts Streets” – a direct reference to the subject site. The written request shows, by virtue of its consideration of the planning provisions, proposed built form and site context (including in regard to cultural heritage) that the building detailing and massing is visually compatible with the desired future character in relation to building bulk, form and scale.

74. The question of “compatibility in the urban environment” was considered in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005) 141 LGERA 80 (Project Venture). Here it was found that consideration of compatibility would generally have two major aspects to it: physical impact and visual impact ([24]). So the second point of explanation goes to the question of physical compatibility. The written request examines the proposal in context and argues that the proposal is physically compatible and brings minimal physical environmental impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views and that the traffic and parking assessment finds that the proposal is acceptable. The written request shows, by virtue of its consideration of the planning provisions and potential physical impacts that the proposal is physically compatible with the desired future character with the desired future character in relation to building bulk, form and scale. I am satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed this matter.

Sufficient environmental planning grounds

75. The written request notes that FSR is commonly concerned with controlling building “scale”. It argues that the FSR as proposed responds directly to the DCP provisions which at C9, and in regard to desired future character, provide guidance for the subject site itself as follows:

“Allow for increased building scale, especially at the corner of Mullens and Roberts Streets.”

76. The written request indicates that larger building scale as proposed, when compared to a building compliant with the FSR, is central to the delivery of positive visual and streetscape elements delivered by the proposal, and provides a positive planning outcome when compared to the existing development on site.

77. I have considered the written request and find that it sets out sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. I am satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed this matter.

Whether development in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone

78. The second opinion of satisfaction required in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) is that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standards that are contravened and the zone objectives. The consent authority must be satisfied that the development is in the public interest because it is consistent with these objectives, not simply that the development is in the public interest (Initial Action at [27]).

79. I am directly satisfied that the development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. My conclusion here is generally in alignment with the reasons cited above [73]-[74] when I considered the written requests arguments on this point.

80. The LEP’s IN2 zone objectives are as follows:

• 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.

• To retain existing employment uses and foster a range of new industrial uses to meet the needs of the community.

• To ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure that supports Leichhardt’s employment opportunities.

• To retain and encourage waterfront industrial and maritime activities.

• To provide for certain business and office premises and light industries in the arts, technology, production and design sectors.

81. On the evidence I am satisfied that the proposal encourages and provides for the retention of employment opportunity, minimises adverse effects on other non-industrial uses and is otherwise not inconsistent with the zone objectives. I am directly satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone. In turn I am satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the IN2 Light Industrial zone objectives.

82. I also mention here that pursuant to cl 4.6(5) of the LEP I am satisfied the proposal does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional development. Further, and mindful of the above analysis, I am satisfied that the public benefit of maintaining that standard is not considered significant. On this basis I am satisfied that the requirements of cl 4.6(4)(b) of LEP 2012 are met.

83. For the reasons outlined above I am satisfied that there is power to grant consent for development, under cl 4.6 of the LEP, notwithstanding its contravention of the LEP’s FSR standard.

Other Issues

Trading hours

84. The originally proposed hours of operation were 6am to 10pm Mondays to Fridays and 6am to 7pm Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays. Council’s position was for trading hours to have the following limits: 7am-7pm Monday-Wednesdays and Fri, 7am-9pm Thursday, 7am-6pm Saturday, 8am-6pm Sunday, and for public holidays. I note there was a submission from another hardware store operator in the local area indicating his trading hours were limited to 7.30am-7.30pm. In the course of the hearing the applicant indicated it would be satisfied with trading as follows: 6.30am-7pm Mon-Wed, 6.30am-9pm Thurs-Fri, 7am-7pm Sat-Sun, and for public holidays.

85. There is no dispute that there is no DCP or related Council policy position which might apply to trading hours for this proposal. I also do not see the facts of an existing operating store as relevant to me (Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675) (Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis). The Court’s role here is therefore to look for other decision framing principles. On the one hand there is a public benefit in providing for wider trading hours reflecting the seeming extended work days of many individuals nowadays. On the other hand there is the potential increased amenity risk of traffic use. The residences quite nearby in Parsons Street are noted in particular here. It seems reasonable to accept that generally the numbers visiting the store during the disputed hours will be relatively small, and would have relatively good accessibility and have very ample parking available to them.

86. It seems to me the extended trading hours in the morning are more likely to assist tradespersons, a group which is not directly targeted by this store anyway. With a mind to minimising local amenity risks, this suggests the adoption of opening hours as proposed by Council. The busy working life of many locals suggests to me a benefit in closing times as now suggested by the applicant (although not as per the original application ie 10pm closing), with the exception of Sundays and public holidays, when again priority should be given to quiet amenity in the immediate locality. Trading hours as follows would be reasonable in this case.

Day	Hours
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday	7am to 7pm
Thursday and Friday	7am to 9pm
Saturday	7am to 7pm
Sundays and Public Holidays	8am to 6pm

Other amenity impacts

87. I have made findings above in regard to some of the concerns of local residents (which overlapped with remaining contentions of Council) including the reliability of traffic data and studies, traffic implications for local streets and trading hours. I note that one significant concern of residents as well as Council, was in regard to larger delivery trucks. The applicant indicated in the course of the hearing that it would be willing to remove the use of large rigid vehicles (‘LRVs’) from the proposal. That is, 12.5m long trucks as previously proposed, would no longer service the site. Delivery trucks would be limited to medium rigid vehicle (‘MRVs’ as defined in AS/NZS 2890.2:2002 and generally up to 8.8m long). There would also be a capping of numbers (15 MRV delivery trucks per day, except in December when it would be lifted to 20 per day - proposed condition 98). Council acknowledged that this change would reduce potential impacts (RCS, p1), and in my view to a reasonable level. My findings in regard to the acceptability of traffic implications of the proposal can be taken to also address the objector concerns in regard to the proposal’s effect on public transport and emergency services accessibility to the locality.

88. I also accept the evidence of the applicant’s experts, in regard to certain other amenity considerations (not before the Court as contentions of the Council). This is in regard to:

1. noise impacts - with expert analysis indicating that for all potential residential (and commercial) receiver positions, the proposal would comply with established noise criteria, including sleep disturbance criterion (Wilkinson Murray report at Ex A behind Tab 17);

2. light spill – given the advice that the lighting would for the most part turn off at closing time, with proposed condition 92 requiring compliance with AS 4282-1997: Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting (this condition’s concern with avoiding light nuisance would also relate to site signage, and the site operational management plan (Ex Q);

3. visual impact, including considerations in relation to cultural heritage – given the advice of Perica and Associates Urban Planning (Ex A, behind Tab 2, and having regard to the cl 4.6 written request (Ex H) and cultural heritage experts Heritage 21 (Ex A behind Tab 11), and;

1. in regard to odours – I note proposed condition 64 would require no odour being able to be detected outside the boundary. The plans also indicate the proposal would not bring any significant impacts in regard to overshadowing.

89. There were also concerns in regard to the effect of the proposal on the operation of the existing hardware store in Rozelle. There are only limited circumstances where it is legitimate for the Court to consider economic competition (Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis), circumstances which do not arise here. The suggestion of losses in property values needs also to be set aside, in accordance with the findings of Moore J in Parker Logan Property Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 155 [14]:

“It is long settled, legally, that where a development is otherwise permissible, the question of impact on property values is not a matter within the jurisdictional purview of a consent authority, whether that consent authority is the Council or this Court”.

Other planning considerations.

90. For the record I note that, given Council’s now acceptance that previously outstanding matters in regard to the investigation of contamination have been addressed, I am satisfied in regard to the requirements of cl 7(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land. I am also satisfied, again mindful of Council’s position in regard to it, that the proposed signage is consistent with the objectives of State Environment Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage, and that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1 of that policy.

Conclusion

91. Having considered the evidence and submissions from both sides, I find that the applicant has addressed the concerns raised in regard to this matter to the Court’s satisfaction.

92. The Court orders:

1. Leave is granted to amend the application to accord with the plans referenced at Annexure A.

2. Leave is granted to amend the application by way of an amending written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, dated 18 April 2019, in regard to a floor space ratio contravention.

3. The cl 4.6 written request is approved.

4. The appeal is upheld.

5. Development application D/2017/631 for demolition of existing buildings, lot consolidation and construction of new three (3) storey building for hardware and building supplies business with associated signage, car parking, landscaping and remediation at 2-8 & 8A Parsons Street, Rozelle NSW 2039 is approved subject the conditions in Annexure A.

6. The exhibits are returned with the exception of 1, 2, A, and C.

……………………………….

P Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (414 KB)

**********

Decision last updated: 19 November 2019