Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council

[2024] NSWLEC 1488

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1488

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference on 3, 19 and 30 April, and 14, 22 and 27 May 2024

Date of orders:

13 August 2024

Decision date:

13 August 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Kullen AC

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $8,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order.

(2)   The appeal is upheld.

(3) The request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the development standard for minimum lot size contained within cl 69(1)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 thereof, as prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024, is upheld.

(4) The request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the development standard for floor space ratio contained within cl 4.4 thereof, as prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024, is upheld.

(5)   Development consent is granted to development application No DA23/0433 as amended, for the demolition of the existing building and structures, excavation and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building comprising of 26 co-living housing units and 2 commercial suites with basement parking at 62 Croydon Street, Cronulla, NSW, 2230 legally known as Lot 19 DP 655323, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – cl 4.6 variations – co-living housing – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 8.7, 8.15

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38, Sch 7 Dictionary

Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan (2006 EPI 155a)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 68, 69

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Ch 2, Div 15, Subdiv 2

Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2

Cases Cited:

Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1251

Texts Cited:

NSW Department of Planning, Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines, December 2008

Sutherland Development Control Plan 2015

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Costa Charalambous (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
V Conomos (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/268169

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by the Sutherland Shire Council of development application DA23/0433 (the DA) for the demolition of the existing building and structures, excavation and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building comprising of 26 co-living units and 2 commercial suites with basement parking at 62 Croydon Street, Cronulla, NSW, 2230 legally known as Lot 19 DP 655323 (the site).

2. The Respondent advised, by way of history of the site, that DA21/0801 was lodged and approved for the demolition of the existing commercial building and the construction of a mixed use development comprising 2 commercial tenancies at ground floor with residential apartments above under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing)) on the site. That application was granted a deferred commencement by the Land and Environment Court of NSW on 13 May 2022 (Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1251), however the Applicant has not yet satisfied the deferred commencement condition (which relates to site de-watering and ground water management).

3. The current DA does not seek to modify this development consent and the Applicant seeks a fresh development consent for the proposed development.

4. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 3 April 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference, which commenced with a site inspection, and was attended by a number of objectors. Two submitters made verbal submissions.

5. The s 34 conciliation conference was adjourned to 19 April 2024 to allow time for amended plans to be prepared by the Applicant and assessed by the Respondent, and subsequently further adjourned a number of times to allow the parties time to consider and review the revised plans and to finalise the s 34 agreement and conditions of consent based on an amended development application (the amended DA).

6. After the conciliation conference, and the assessment by the Respondent of the amended plans, the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The Respondent advised that the amended DA did not require re-notification. The parties advise that the matters raised by the submitters have been adequately addressed through the amended plans and conditions imposed on the development consent.

7. The key changes made in the amended DA arising from the conciliation conference are as follows:

1. Revision of the room layout including reduction in the number of rooms by three, and revision of car parking including provision of two car share places; and

2. Details of materials, privacy screens, Waste Management Plan and detailed stormwater management plan.

8. A signed s 34 agreement with Annexures A and B was filed with the Court on 29 May 2024, with amended plans and additional material (the amended DA) as agreed between the parties. The s 34 agreement is supported by an agreed statement of jurisdictional prerequisites. The final Jurisdictional Statement was filed with the Court on 6 August 2024.

9. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

10. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the DA (as amended).

11. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance have been satisfied in a written submission accompanying the s 34 agreement, and those requirements have been satisfied as follows.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Owner’s consent

12. The Respondent advises that the DA was submitted with the consent, in writing, of the owners of the subject land.

Community Participation (Sch 1, Div 2, s 7(1))

13. The DA was notified by the Respondent between 13 July 2023 and 29 July 2023, in accordance with the provisions of the Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (the DCP) – Neighbourhood notification. Three submissions were received in response to that notification.

14. The Respondent advised that the amended DA did not require re-notification.

Conditions

15. The s 34 agreement includes the imposition of conditions which are imposed under s 4.17(1) of the EPA Act.

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015

16. The Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (the LEP) applies to the site and to the proposed development. The DA was lodged on 7 July 2023 with council, and pursuant to the savings provisions at cl 1.8A of the LEP:

1. The site is zoned E2 – Commercial Centre zone pursuant to cl 2.2 of the LEP; and the objectives of the zone pursuant to cl 2.3 of the LEP are:

1. To strengthen the role of the commercial centre as the centre of business, retail, community and cultural activity.

2. To encourage investment in commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

3. To encourage development that has a high level of accessibility and amenity, particularly for pedestrians.

4. To enable residential development only if it is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

5. To ensure that new development provides diverse and active street frontages to attract pedestrian traffic and to contribute to vibrant, diverse and functional streets and public spaces.

2. “Co-living housing” is included in the definition of residential accommodation in the Dictionary of the LEP, and in the Dictionary of the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan (2006 EPI 155a); and

1. The parties advise that the proposed development for co-living housing units and commercial suites is permitted with consent within the E2 Commercial Centre zone pursuant to cl 2.3 of the LEP; and

2. The parties further advise that they agree that the amended DA achieves the objectives of the E2 zone in the LEP. I am satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

3. Pursuant to cl 4.3 of the LEP the maximum height of buildings (HoB) on the site is 16 metres; and

1. The parties advise that the proposed development complies with the HoB development standard;

4. Pursuant to cl 4.4 of the LEP a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 2:1 applies to the site. Clause 68(2)(a)(ii) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (the Housing SEPP) (refer to paragraph [23] below) provides a bonus floor space of 10% for co-living housing, increasing the maximum FSR on the site to 2.2:1. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 956.65m² resulting in an FSR of 2.33:1, exceeding the maximum permissible gross floor area by 53.33m² or 5.9%; and

1. The Applicant submitted a cl 4.6 written request for the amended DA prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024. The parties have advised that the Court can be satisfied that compliance with the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of the LEP is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to permit the variation and that the development is in the public interest because it achieves the objectives of the Commercial Centre E2 zone in the LEP;

2. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s amended cl 4.6 written request is well founded and that the variation to the FSR standard is acceptable noting that:

1. There is an existing approval (DA21/0801) for a mixed use development which has an approved FSR of 2.43:1 on the site, comprising commercial ground floor and residential units above with a SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 component and strata subdivision;

2. The current amended DA will achieve the delivery of a different form of affordable residential floor space on the site, to be achieved through the change in the proposed development from infill affordable rental housing (6 apartments) to co-living housing for a maximum of 33 occupants, with a reduction in proposed FSR on the site to 2.33:1; and

3. The breach in the FSR development standard arises from the proposed delivery of co-living housing similar in scale to the amount of floorspace proposed for affordable housing approved in DA21/0801 for the site;

3. I am satisfied that compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as required under cl 4.6(3)(a) of the LEP (noting this refers to the version of cl 4.6 in the LEP at the time the DA was lodged), because the proposed development achieves the objectives of the FSR development standard notwithstanding the FSR exceedance for the reasons provided within the Applicant’s written request, which I adopt;

4. I am also satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR development standard, as required under cl 4.6(3)(b) of LEP, for the following reasons:

1. The provision of more affordable housing on the site would have a far greater efficiency than a compliant development that would reduce the amount of affordable housing available, particularly given the acceptance of the built form already approved at the site. The approved building envelope does not change as a result of the proposed co-living housing;

2. The proposed FSR variation results in a beneficial approach to massing of the proposed building. The proposal provides for an appropriate scale and form that reflects the desired future character for development in Cronulla Town Centre;

3. The FSR variation is not considered to have any material adverse impact on the amenity, visual and acoustic privacy, views or the environmental values of surrounding properties, the amenity of future building occupants and the character of the locality;

4. The social and economic benefits of providing additional affordable housing floorspace within a highly sought after location should be given substantial weight in the consideration of the variation request, as the proposed development gives better effect to the objectives of the E2 Commercial Centre zone in the LEP;

5. The proposed contravention of the FSR development standard provides for a well-considered, environmentally sensitive design which is responsive to its setting and context. The immediately adjoining Council car park to the north has an FSR of 3:1 and the land to the south has an FSR of 2.5:1, thus the design of this prominent corner site accommodating additional floor space will complement the neighbouring sites and will not be visually intrusive in the context of the permissible FSR on these nearby sites. The additional floor space enhances the prominent corner design and does not adversely impact the amenity of the built environment; and

5. Approval of the proposed development will be in the public interest for the reasons provided above (at [16(4)(d)] above), and because the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for the FSR development standard and for development within the E2 Commercial Centre zoning of the subject site, for reasons provided within the Applicant’s written request, which I also adopt;

5. Clause 5.21 of the LEP relates to Flood Planning. The parties advise that the site is not identified as flood prone land in the LEP;

6. Clause 6.1 of the LEP relates to acid sulfate soils. The parties advise that the site is mapped as Class 5 Land, and is within 500m of adjacent Class 4 land (Tonkin Park), at least part of which are below 5m AHD; and

1. The parties advise that the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 23 June 2023 identifies with regard to Clause 6.1(2) of the LEP that, “the site has Class 5 acid sulfate soils. The work will not lower the water table by more than 1m AHD”;

7. Clause 6.2 of the LEP sets out the matters that the consent authority is required to consider before granted development consent for earthworks. The consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed earthworks will not result in adverse impacts to the soil and vegetation on the Site and adjoining properties; and

1. The parties advise that the amended DA is accompanied by a report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation Report” by GCA Geotechnical Consultants Australia dated 16 May 2023, and that the relevant matters under cl 6.2 of the LEP with respect to earthworks have been addressed.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

17. On 1 March 2022, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (“the 2021 Regulation”) came into force. The Dictionary in Sch 7 of the 2021 Regulation, includes the following:

BASIX building means a building that contains at least 1 dwelling, but does not include the following—

(a)  hotel or motel accommodation,

(b)  a boarding house, hostel or co-living housing that—

(i)  accommodates more than 12 residents, or

(ii)  has a gross floor area exceeding 300 square metres.

18. As the amended proposed development is for co-living housing for up to 33 residents, it is not defined as a BASIX building, and does not require a BASIX certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

19. The version of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (the Housing SEPP) at the date the DA was lodged (7 July 2023) applies to the proposed development, as the DA includes co-living housing.

20. The proposed development is subject to a development standard in relation to the minimum lot size of 800m² pursuant to cl 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Housing SEPP.

21. The site area is 410.6m². The Applicant has provided a written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the LEP seeking to vary the minimum lot size to enable the application of the Housing SEPP to the site.

22. The parties advise that they are satisfied that the cl 4.6 variation request for the minimum lot size is satisfactory, as discussed below:

1. The Applicant submitted a cl 4.6 written request for the amended DA prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024. The parties have advised that the Court can be satisfied that compliance with the minimum lot size development standard in cl 69(1)(b)(ii) of the Housing SEPP is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to permit the variation and that the development is in the public interest because it achieves the objectives of the Commercial Centre E2 zone in the LEP;

2. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s cl 4.6 written request is well founded and that the variation to the minimum lot size for co-living housing development standard is acceptable noting that:

1. There is an existing (still valid) approval (DA21/0801) with a deferred commencement date for commercial ground floor and residential units above with a SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 component and strata subdivision;

2. The current amended DA proposes no additional overshadowing, privacy or view loss over the previously approved development. The proposed building will provide a mixed use development that gives greater effect to the objectives of the zone and maintains a positive contribution to the local area and affordable housing need through co-living housing;

3. The breach in the minimum lot size development standard arises from the proposed delivery of co-living housing on the site similar to the amount of floorspace proposed for affordable housing approved in DA21/0801 for the site;

4. I am satisfied that compliance with the minimum lot size development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as required under cl 4.6(3)(a) of the LEP (noting this refers to the version of cl 4.6 in the LEP at the time the DA was lodged), because the proposed development achieves the objectives of the minimum lot size development standard for the reasons provided within the Applicant’s written request, which I adopt;

5. I am also satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the minimum lot size development standard, as required under cl 4.6(3)(b) of LEP, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed built form is contextually appropriate and does not create any new considerations of bulk and scale based on the change from apartments to co-living housing on the site;

2. The site is at the junction of areas of different (higher) densities and is not of a bulk or scale that is out of context with existing or anticipated development within the Cronulla Town Centre; and

6. Approval of the proposed development will be in the public interest for the reasons provided above, and because the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for development within the E2 Commercial Centre zoning of the subject site, for reasons provided within the Applicant’s written request, which I also adopt.

23. The Housing SEPP contains a number of non-discretionary development standards at s 68 that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for the matters. The parties advise that the amended DA complies with all components of s 68 of the Housing SEPP apart from the following:

1. Section 68(2)(a)(ii) Floor Space Ratio – this section provides for a 10% floor space bonus. The proposal will exceed the maximum bonus (10%) permitted at the site (2.2:1) with an FSR of 2.33:1. This non-compliance has been addressed in the cl 4.6 variation prepared by Planning Ingenuity, dated 15 April 2024, and is discussed at paragraph [16(4)] above;

2. Section 68(2)(d) Communal Open Spaces – While the proposal complies with the minimum requirements for communal living areas (88.4m²) under s 68(2)(b), the site does not provide the required communal open space at a rate of at least 20% of the site area (82.12m²). A balcony with an area of 37.4m² is provided with direct access to the common living room. While not meeting the numeric controls this shortfall is acceptable given the large balconies provided to the majority of private rooms. this non-compliance has been dealt with at Section 3.2.3 of the SEE; and

3. Section 68(2)(e) Parking – two carshare spaces are allocated for the benefit of the co-living component of the development, with four spaces for the retail. In lieu of dedicated off-street parking spaces for the co-living component, the Applicant is committed to providing two dedicated ‘car share’ spaces, thereby allowing two single vehicles to be used by a large number of the students and young professionals living within the co-living development. Despite the non-compliance, the parties are satisfied that the proposal can be supported and the basis of the provision of the two dedicated car spaces.

24. The parties advise that they are satisfied that despite these non-compliances with s 68 of the Housing SEPP the proposed development is worthy of approval.

25. Section 69 of the Housing SEPP contains standards for co-living housing. The parties have advised that the amended DA complies with all standards contained in s 69 with the exception of:

1. Section 69(b)(ii) requires that a minimum lot size for co-living housing is not less than 800m² for development on land, other than development on land in Zone R2 low density residential which permits a site area of 600m². The subject site has a site area of 410.6m the cl 4.6 variation to vary this standard is discussed at pars [20] – [22] above;

2. Section 69(2)(b) relates to minimum building separation distances specified in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) for co-living housing of at least three storeys. Under s 69(2) the Consent Authority must consider whether the proposed building will comply with this standard. The parties advise that the amended DA is seen as being acceptable and worthy of approval for the following reasons:

1. The proposed building is setback from the rear (east) boundary by 1.8m and separated from the closest building by 4.5m due to the presence of the right of footway and pedestrian laneway;

2. While there are balconies proposed at each level towards the rear boundary(laneway), this is consistent with the existing approval for the site which includes apartment balconies within 1.8m of the rear boundary; and

3. The proposed development will not give rise to any new visual privacy issues and based on the same design approach and relationship to the eastern boundary, the amended DA is acceptable on merit.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

26. The parties submit that the site is not considered to be adjacent to a rail corridor for the purpose of s 2.98(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP), as the site is located 55.29m away from the rail corridor and is separated by two roads. Written notice of the DA to the rail authority under s 2.98(2)(a) of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP was not required.

27. The parties advise that the amended DA was accompanied by an Acoustic Report prepared by Koikas Acoustics, who undertook an acoustic assessment of the proposed development. The report concludes that intrusive train and road noise and vibration levels at the subject site will comply with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment’s Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines 2008 and the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

28. Section 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) requires that a consent authority must not grant consent to any development on the land unless it has considered whether a site is contaminated or potentially contaminated land, and if it is, that it is satisfied that the land is suitable (or will be suitable after undergoing remediation) for the proposed use.

29. The parties advise that they are satisfied that the preliminary site investigation report prepared by GCA and dated 18 March 2024 satisfies the requirements of s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.

30. The Court is satisfied for the purposes of s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP that the site is suitable for the proposed development.

Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015

31. The parties advise that the provisions of the DCP that are of relevance have been taken into account in preparing the amended DA, and all matters raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) filed by the Respondent have been addressed.

Conclusion

32. Having considered the advice of the parties provided above at [12] – [31], I am satisfied that:

1. the Applicant’s amended DA can be approved having regard to the matters in s 4.15(1)(b) – (e) of the EPA Act;

2. the jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act have been satisfied; and

3. approval of the proposed development is in the public interest.

33. Further, 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.

34. 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.

35. The Court notes:

1. that Sutherland Shire Council, as the relevant consent authority, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, has approved the application for an amendment to development application DA23/0433 made on 29 May 2024 to rely on the documents specified below:

1. Plans, prepared by Innovate Architects, dated April 2024

Plan number	Revision number	Plan title	Drawn by	Date of plans
01	Issue C	Site / Roof Plan	Innovate Architects	April 2024
02	Issue D	Basement & Ground Floor Plan	Innovate Architects	May 2024
03	Issue C	Level 1, 2 & 3 Floor Plans	Innovate Architects	April 2024
04	Issue C	Level 4 Floor Plan & Roof Plan	Innovate Architects	April 2024
05	Issue C	Elevations & Finishes Schedule	Innovate Architects	April 2024
06	Issue C	Section A-A and Section B-B	Innovate Architects	April 2024
07	Issue C	Section C-C, Detailed Façade Section	Innovate Architects	April 2024

2. Plan of Management, prepared by Planning Ingenuity, dated April 2024

3. Arboricultural Assessment Report, prepared by Redgum Horticultural, dated 2 May 2024

4. Operational Waste Management Plan, prepared by EF Consulting, dated 9 May 2024

5. Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan, prepared by Varga Traffic Consulting, dated 3 May 2024

2. The amended DA was filed with the Court on 29 May 2024.

36. The Court orders that:

1. Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $8,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. The request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the development standard for minimum lot size contained within cl 69(1)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 thereof, as prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024, is upheld.

4. The request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the development standard for floor space ratio contained within cl 4.4 thereof, as prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 April 2024, is upheld.

5. Development consent is granted to development application No DA23/0433 as amended, for the demolition of the existing building and structures, excavation and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building comprising of 26 co-living housing units and 2 commercial suites with basement parking at 62 Croydon Street, Cronulla, NSW, 2230 legally known as Lot 19 DP 655323, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

G Kullen

Acting Commissioner of the Court

2023.268169 annexure A

**********

Decision last updated: 13 August 2024