Corvas Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

[2022] NSWLEC 1614

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Corvas Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2022] NSWLEC 1614

Hearing dates:

21 October 2022

Date of orders:

8 November 2022

Decision date:

08 November 2022

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Chilcott C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1)   The appeal is upheld;

(2)   Development application DA/2021/0518 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building containing ground floor and lower ground floor commercial tenancies, three levels of student accommodation comprising 56 self-contained studio apartments and communal facilities and a part 1 level part 2 level basement structure containing car parking and servicing and establishment of a ground level landscaped through site link to be dedicated to Council, at 1-5 Chester Street, Annandale, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure ‘A’.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders.

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 7.7, 8.7

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cl 55

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 1.8A, 2.3

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, Sch 1, cll 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.8, 6.22, 6.23

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, cl 26

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Sch 7A

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, cl 2.48

Texts Cited:

Inner West Council Community Engagement Framework 2019

Land and Environment Court of NSW COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (April 2021)

Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Corvas Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
M Sonter (Solicitor)(Applicant)
L Smith (Solicitor)(Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Clayton Utz (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/92784

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: Corvas Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has appealed the refusal by Inner West Council (the Respondent) of its development application DA/2021/0518 seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building containing ground floor and lower ground floor commercial tenancies, three levels of student accommodation, a basement structure containing car parking and servicing as well as the establishment of a ground level landscaped through site link to be dedicated to Council (the Proposed Development) at 1-5 Chester Street, Annandale (the Subject Site).

2. More specifically, as a consequence of the amendments to the Applicant’s development application, the Proposed Development now includes:

1. a reduction in the number of units within the Proposed Development from 60 to 57 (which includes 1 on-site manager's room) and alterations to the building to demonstrate compliance with the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard applicable to development on the Subject Site;

2. the reconfiguration of the basement layout to remove encroachment into the through site link corridor;

3. the provision of a balcony to the northern units on levels 1-3;

4. the provision of a louvred façade to the corridors and communal open space; and

5. a revised layout of the footpath and planting arrangement for the proposed through site link.

3. The appeal is made under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction. The appeal is determined pursuant to the provisions of s 4.16 of the EP&A Act.

4. The Proposed Development was initially notified in accordance with the provisions of Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (LDCP) and the Inner West Council Community Engagement Framework (2019) and was notified for 21 days from 1 July 2021 to 22 July 2021 and was renotified for a further period of 21 days between 3 August 2021 and 24 August 2021 due to an administrative error. Ten submissions were received in relation to the initial notification, and a further three submissions were received in relation to the re-notification.

5. All residents who made written submissions in respect of the development application have been provided with the Applicant’s amended architectural and landscape plans and the updated Plan of Management, and they were also informed that the Parties had reached an agreement the terms of which resolved all contentions in the appeal.

6. On 21 October 2022, the Parties participated in a s 34 conciliation conference under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) and reached an in-principle agreement regarding the granting of consent to the Applicant’s development application, subject to conditions.

7. The conciliation conference was convened in a manner consistent with the Land and Environment Court’s COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (April 2021). A site inspection had been undertaken at a prior conciliation conference at which two matters were raised by objectors, which concerned potential privacy/overlooking impacts and potential acoustic impacts, and in relation to these matters.

1. residents expressed concern that parts of the Proposed Development would overlook their homes located opposite the Subject Site, and across an adjacent stormwater channel/public reserve, and in response:

1. the Respondent, relying on the evidence of its town planning expert, submitted that these potential impacts were satisfactorily mitigated by:

1. the distances between the Proposed Development and objector homes, which were located at least a 12m, and up to a 46m, distance from the Subject Site; and

2. established landscaping, including trees, in the adjacent public reserve, aided by certain landscaping elements within the Proposed Development;

2. the Respondent further submitted that:

1. the Applicant had provided an acoustic assessment prepared by West & Associates Pty Ltd, dated 1 July 2022, confirming to the Respondent’s satisfaction that potential noise levels from the Proposed Development, including in relation to its proposed communal open space and commercial spaces, would be compliant with the applicable noise controls when measured at the closest sensitive receiver; and

2. the Applicant’s Plan of Management dated 20 July 2022 included specific provisions for the management of potential noise impacts and nearby residents would be provided with the contact details for the Applicant’s on-site manager should circumstances arise that required communication to that person.

8. 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.

9. There are jurisdictional matters that must be satisfied before the Court can exercise its power to grant consent to the Proposed Development, and those requirements have been satisfied as follows:

1. at the date of lodgement of development application DA/2021/0459, development on the Subject Site was subject to the provisions of Leichardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP), and in relation to those provisions;

1. LLEP was recently repealed, and its provisions replaced by those of Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (IWLEP), but the operation of LLEP with respect to the Proposed Development is saved by cl 1.8A of IWLEP;

2. in relation to the provisions of LLEP:

1. the Subject Site is zoned B7 Business Park under the provisions cl 2.3 of both LLEP and IWLEP, and:

1. the Applicant seeks consent for business premises used for a business in the biomedical, arts, technology, production or design sector and a boarding house used for student accommodation; and

2. the Subject Site is identified on the Additional Permitted Uses map in LLEP and pursuant to the provisions of cl 2.5 and Schedule 1 item 10 of LLEP, and development for the purposes proposed by the Applicant is permitted with consent on the Subject Site.

2. the Proposed Development includes proposed demolition works for which consent is required pursuant to cl 2.7 of LLEP;

3. pursuant to the provisions of cl 5.10, the Subject Site adjoins a state listed heritage item known as the Johnstons Creek Stormwater Channel, is located within the vicinity of the several locally listed heritage items (No.’s I613, I614 and I616) and is in the vicinity of the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area, and in relation to this:

1. the Applicant has provided a Heritage Impact Statement with its Development Application; and

2. the Parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the Proposed Development will not result in an adverse impact on the surrounding heritage items, and appropriate conditions of consent have been proposed for imposition with any grant of consent to the Proposed Development;

4. pursuant to the provisions of cl 5.21, the Subject Site is classified as flood prone land, and in relation to this the Applicant has provided a response to the flooding contentions, as well as a Flood Risk Management Report and Flood Planning Assessment prepared by Sparks and Partners, dated 21 October 2022, which confirms to my satisfaction that the Proposed Development is consistent with the requirements of subcl 5.21(2) because it:

1. is compatible with the flood function and behaviour of the land;

2. will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties;

3. will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood;

4. incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood;

5. will not adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of riverbanks or watercourses;

5. further, the Parties have confirmed, and I am satisfied, that, consistent with the provisions of subcl 5.21(3), the following matters have been considered in relation to the grant of consent sought by the Applicant:

1. the impact of the Proposed Development on projected changes to flood behaviour as a result of climate change;

2. the intended design and scale of buildings resulting from the Proposed Development,

3. whether the Proposed Development incorporates measures to minimise the risk to life and ensure the safe evacuation of people in the event of a flood; and

4. the potential to modify, relocate or remove buildings resulting from the Proposed Development if the surrounding area is impacted by flooding or coastal erosion;

6. pursuant to the provisions of cl 6.1, the Subject Site is mapped as containing Class 3 acid sulphate soils, and consistent with the requirements of subcl 6.1(3), the Applicant has provided an acid sulfate soils management plan, prepared in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual;

7. the Proposed Development seeks consent for earthworks, and as required under the provisions of subcl 6.2(3), the Parties have confirmed, and I am satisfied, that the following matters have been considered in relation to the consent sought:

1. the Proposed Development is designed to drain water and manage water in an on-site detention tank;

2. the earthworks will facilitate the proposed efficient use of the Subject Site noting that it will provide basement car parking and will facilitate future permitted uses on the site;

3. any contaminated or low quality fill on the Subject Site will be suitably managed under the Applicant’s Remediation Action Plan (RAP) which formed part of its development application;

4. the Proposed Development is not expected to result in an adverse impact on the amenity or structural integrity of adjoining properties;

5. excavated material will be disposed of at an appropriate off-site facility in accordance with the requirements of the Applicant’s RAP;

6. the Subject Site is not identified as a heritage item and therefore the likelihood of relics being found on the Subject Site is assessed to be low; and

7. the Proposed Development and its stormwater management system are designed to drain water into an on-site detention tank and stormwater will be treated prior to discharge ,as outlined in the Applicant’s Stormwater Plans, prepared by Xavier Knight, and which formed part of the Applicant’s development application;

8. pursuant to the provisions of subcl 6.4(3), the Parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the Proposed Development will not result in an adverse impact on stormwater, as it:

1. has been designed to maximise water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the site conditions

2. is not deemed practicable for on-site stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water, and

3. does not result in any significant adverse impacts relating to stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters.

9. development on the Subject Site is subject to the provisions of cl 6.8 concerning aircraft noise, and in relation to this the Applicant has provided an acoustic impact assessment and the Parties agree, and I am satisfied, that, pursuant to the provisions of subcl 6.8(3), the following matters have been considered:

1. whether the Proposed Development will result in the increase in the number of dwellings or people affected by aircraft noise; and

2. the location of the development in relation to the criteria set out in Table 2.1 (Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones) in AS2021: 2015; and

3. whether the development will meet the indoor design sound levels shown in Table 3.3 (Indoor Design Sound Levels for Determination of Aircraft Noise Reduction) in AS2021: 2015;

10. development on the Subject Site is subject to the additional local provisions in cl 6.22, and in relation to this:

1. as required under the provisions of subcl 6.22(3), the Proposed Development does not include subdivision of the Subject Site;

2. consistent with the provisions of subcll 6.22(4)(a)-(b), the Proposed Development does not exceed 17 metres, or 5 storeys, in height;

3. consistent with the provisions of subcl 6.22(5), the Proposed Development has a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2:1, and it satisfies the specific provisions of subcll 6.22(5)(a)-(J) that are pre-requisites for consent to be granted for a development with the maximum 2:1 FSR sought by the Applicant;

11. development on the Subject Site is also subject to the further additional local provisions in cl 6.23, and in relation to this:

1. as required under the provisions of subcl 6.23(2), the Respondent has confirmed, and I am satisfied, that the concurrence of the Planning Secretary has been provided in relation to the Proposed Development;

3. the Proposed Development is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP BASIX), and in relation to this the Applicant has been provided BASIX Certificate number 1204816M_02 dated 22 July 2022, in compliance with the relevant provisions of SEPP BASIX.

4. in relation the provisions of cl 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP R&H), the Parties advise, and I am satisfied, that:

1. the Applicant’s Development Application was lodged under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP55);

2. on 1 March 2022, SEPP55 was repealed, and its provisions were transferred to (SEPP R&H);

3. the Applicant has prepared and submitted a Remediation Action Plan prepared by EI Australia that confirms that the Subject Site is contaminated and outlines the methodology for remediation of the Subject Site to ensure its suitability for its intended use under the Proposed Development; and

4. the Respondent has confirmed, and I am satisfied, that the contamination status of the Subject Site has been assessed and it is suitable, or will be made suitable, for its intended use such that the provisions of cl 4.6 of SEPP R&H are satisfied;

5. the Proposed Development is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure)2021 (SEPP T&I) , and in relation to this:

1. the Applicant’s Development Application was lodged under the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP Infrastructure);

2. on 1 March 2022 SEPP Infrastructure was repealed, and its provisions were transferred into the SEPP T&I;

3. the provisions of subcl 2.48(2) of SEPP T&I require that a referral be made to the electricity supply authority for any development comprising the penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity line and any development carried out within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line; and

4. the Parties have confirmed, and I am satisfied, that:

1. the Proposed Development has been referred to Ausgrid which has confirmed that it has no objection to the Proposed Development; and

2. the Parties’ agreed conditions of consent reflect the recommendations of Ausgrid provided in response to the referral;

6. the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH) are a relevant consideration in relation to developments that include affordable accommodation such as boarding houses, and in relation to this:

1. SEPP ARH was repealed on 1 March 2022, but was in force at the time of the lodgement of the Applicant’s Development Application in this appeal; and

2. clause 26 of SEPP ARH sets out the land to which the Division 3 boarding house provisions apply and relevantly, land such as the Subject Site that is zoned B7 Business Park is not subject to these provisions and accordingly the provisions of SEPP ARH do not apply to the Proposed Development;

7. in relation to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing), which commenced 26 November 2021:

1. Item 2(1)(a) of Schedule 7A Savings and Transitional Provisions states:

“This Policy does not apply to the following matters -

(a) a development application made, but not yet determined, on or before the commencement date”.

2. the Applicant’s Development Application DA/2021/0518 was lodged on 21 June 2021 and was not determined on 26 November 2021 (the commencement date pursuant to Schedule 7A item 1); and

3. the provisions of SEPP Housing do not apply to the Proposed Development;

8. In relation to Voluntary Planning Agreements:

1. the Planning Secretary's concurrence provided by the Applicant is subject to a condition of consent that prior to the first construction certificate the Applicant is to enter into a planning agreement with the Minister for Planning as per its offer dated 16 September 2022, and this condition is reflected in Condition 32A of Annexure A to the Parties’ section 34 agreement in these proceedings;

2. condition 32 of Annexure A to the Parties’ section 34 agreement in these proceedings also requires the developer/landowner to enter into a planning agreement with Inner West Council in accordance with the terms of its offer dated 29 July 2022 and annexed to the conditions, and on 13 September 2022 Inner West Council resolved to enter into this planning agreement which relates to the provision of a 6m wide pedestrian and cycle path with landscaping adjacent to Johnstons Creek as referred to in cl 6.22 of LLEP;

3. section 7.7(3) of the EP&A Act authorises a consent authority, or the Court on appeal, to impose a condition on development consent requiring a planning agreement to be entered into, as per the terms of an offer made by a proponent in connection with a development application;

9. the Parties have confirmed that the relevant provisions of LDCP have been considered in relation to the Proposed Development, and I am satisfied that:

1. the Proposed Development either:

1. satisfies the controls of relevant provisions of LDCP; or

2. it provides a reasonable alternative to those controls such that it achieves the objectives of those controls, and merits the flexibility in application of the controls as required under the provisions of s 4.15(3A) of the EP&A Act;

2. there is no provision of LDCP that would form a basis for refusal of the Proposed Development, including those relating to the mitigation of potential amenity impacts on neighbouring properties;

10. the Proposed Development is acceptable having regard to the provisions of s 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act including in relation to the submissions of the objectors which is a relevant consideration under section 4.15(1)(d) of the EP&A Act.

10. Having considered the advice of the Parties, provided above at [9], I agree that:

1. the Applicant’s Development Application can be approved having regard to the matters in s 4.15(1)(b) – (e) of the EP&A Act; and

2. the jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EP&A Act have been so satisfied;

3. approval of the Proposed Development is in the public interest.

11. 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.

12. As the Parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties’ decision.

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

14. The Court notes that:

1. Inner West Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed, under subcl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to the Applicant amending development application DA/2021/0518 in accordance with the documents below:

Plan Name	Drawing number	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Amended Architectural Plans
Title Page	DA000	E	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Location Plan	DA100	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Site Analysis	DA101	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Existing Streetscapes	DA102	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Design Response	DA103	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Design Response	DA104	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Design Response	DA105	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Proposed Site Plan	DA106	B	01/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Demolition Plan	DA107	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Basement Level	DA200	F	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Lower Ground Floor Plan	DA201	F	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Ground Floor Plan	DA202	E	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Level 1	DA203	F	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Levels 2-3 Typ	DA204	F	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Roof	DA205	C	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Architectural Design Response	DA300	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Architectural Design Response	DA301	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Architectural Design Response	DA302	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Architectural Design Response	DA303	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Architectural Design Response	DA304	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Perspective – Sheet 1	DA310	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Perspective – Sheet 2	DA311	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Perspective – Sheet 3	DA312	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Perspective – Sheet 4	DA313	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
North -East Elevation	DA320	C	12/07/2022	DKO Architecture
West Elevation	DA321	D	12/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Section A	DA330	E	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Section B	DA331	E	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
South-West Elevation	DA332	A	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
GFA Calculation	DA400	E	12/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Boarding Room Typologies	DA401	B	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Typical Unit Layout	DA402	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Deep Soil and Landscape Calculation	DA403	C	12/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Communal Area Calculation	DA404	B	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Solar & Daylight Access	DA405	B	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Shadows Diagram – Proposed Building	DA406	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Shadows Diagram – Existing Building	DA407	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Shadows Diagram – 17 Chester Street	DA408	B	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Shadows Diagram – COS	DA409	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
Eye of the sun analysis	DA410	A	11/06/2021	DKO Architecture
3D Height Plane	DA411	A	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Typical Unit Layout A&B	DA500	A	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Typical Unit Layout C	DA501	A	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Typical Unit Layout D	DA502	A	29/11/2021	DKO Architecture
Typical Unit Layout Twin Studio	DA503	B	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Details of Open Screen	DA510	A	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Details of Open Screen	DA511	A	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Details of Open Screen	DA512	A	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Indicative Design for 17 Chester Street	DA520	A	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Eye of the sun analysis for 17 Chester Street	DA521	A	10/06/2022	DKO Architecture
Ceiling height for LG and GF	DA530	A	10/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Sydney Water Plan	DA540	A	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Subdivision Plan	DA541	A	15/07/2022	DKO Architecture
Amended Landscape Plans
Cover Sheet and Design Statement	LD-S34-000	4	15/07/l2022	Landform Studios
Materials & Planting Schedules	LD-S34-001	3	15/07/2022	Landform Studios
Landscape Compliance Calculations	LD-S34-002	2	12/07/2022	Landform Studios
Landscape Site Plan	LD-S34-100	4	15/07/2022	Landform Studios
Ground Floor & Public Domain Detail Plan	LD-S34-101	4	15/07/2022	Landform Studios
Level 1 Landscape Plan	LD-S34-110	2	29.06.2022	Landform Studios
Level 2-3 Typical Landscape Plan	LD-S34-120	2	29.06.2022	Landform Studios
Site Section AA – Through Site Link	LD-S34-400	4	15/07/2022	Landform Studios
Site Section BB – Through Site Link	LD-S34-401	3	15/07/2022	Landform Studios
Reports
Schedule of Amendments prepared by DKO Architecture dated 12 July 2022
Response to Contentions Table prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 1 July 2022
Response to Design Contentions prepared by DKO Architecture dated 1 July 2022
Response to Landscape Contentions prepared by Landform Studios dated 29 June 2022
Response to Traffic Contentions prepared by Stantec dated 1 July 2022
Amended Operational Plan of Management prepared by Britely Property dated 20 July 2022
Amended Acoustic Report prepared by West & Associates Pty Ltd dated 1 July 2022
Response to Flooding Contentions prepared by Cardno dated 1 June 2022
Flood Risk Management Report prepared by Sparks and Partners dated 9 June 2022
Operational Waste Management Report prepared by Elephants Foot Rev D dated 30 September 2021
Amended BASIX Certificate prepared by Integral Group Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd dated 22 July 2022
Car Hoist Manual, Product Brochure, Service and Maintenance Statement, Warranty Service and Support document dated 2022
Detailed Sydney Water Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Survey prepared by All Sydney Side Lines dated 13 December 2021
Ground Floor Concept Parking and Signage Plan prepared by Stantec dated 14 July 2022
Planning Secretary Concurrence under clause 6.23 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 dated 19 September 2022
LEP Flood Planning Assessment prepared by Sparks and Partners dated 21 October 2022

2. the Amended Application identified above was lodged on the NSW planning portal on 12 October 2022 and 25 October 2022.

3. that the Applicant filed the Amended Application with the Court on 14 October 2022.

Orders

15. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld;

2. Development application DA/2021/0518 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use building containing ground floor and lower ground floor commercial tenancies, three levels of student accommodation comprising 56 self-contained studio apartments and communal facilities and a part 1 level part 2 level basement structure containing car parking and servicing and establishment of a ground level landscaped through site link to be dedicated to Council, at 1-5 Chester Street, Annandale, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure ‘A’.

…………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (1561032, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 08 November 2022