Fyve Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

[2023] NSWLEC 1435

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Fyve Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2023] NSWLEC 1435

Hearing dates:

Conciliation conference on 18 April 2023

Date of orders:

09 August 2023

Decision date:

09 August 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Sheridan AC

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the development application pursuant to s 8.15(3) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of $12,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.

(2) The Applicant’s written request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 29 May 2023, pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP), to vary the height of buildings development standard in cl 4.3 of the SSLEP is upheld.

(3) The appeal is upheld.

(4) Development consent is granted to Development Application No DA22/0890, for demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building, comprising seven storeys above ground, with three levels of basement parking, 36 residential apartments and associated landscaping, ancillary works and strata subdivision, at 15–19 Pinnacle Street, Miranda (Lots 11–13 in DP 11987), subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – residential flat building– variation to height of building development standard – site isolation - conciliation conference – agreement between parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 4.15, 4.16, 8.7, 8.15, Sch 1

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 39

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 11

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development 2002

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Ch 2, s 2.48

Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 6.2, 6.4, 6.10, 6.14, 6.16, 6.17

Cases Cited:

Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118

Texts Cited:

NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Apartment Design Guide, 2015

Sutherland Shire Council, Community Engagement Policy, 2019

Sutherland Development Control Plan 2015

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Fyve Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Counsel) (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/331161

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings relate to an appeal to the Land and Environment Court (Court) pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by Sutherland Shire Council (the Council) of Development Application DA22/0890 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building, comprising six storeys above ground, with three levels of basement parking, 36 residential apartments and associated landscaping, ancillary works and strata subdivision, at 15–19 Pinnacle Street, Miranda (Lots 11–13 in DP 11987) (the Site). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on appeal, the Court has the power to determine the DA pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act.

2. 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 18 April 2023.

3. I presided over the conciliation conference and adjourned the conference on several occasions to allow the further amended plans to be prepared so that those amendments agreed to between the parties could be incorporated into agreed conditions of consent.

4. A signed agreement was prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act and was filed with the Court on 16 June 2023. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application.

5. The parties asked me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the Applicant, noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent at Annexure A to this judgment.

6. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act. In this case, there are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.

7. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. From this I note the following:

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP)

8. Clause 2.3 of SSLEP requires the consent authority to have regard to the objectives for development in the zone prior to determining the Development Application. The parties submit and I am satisfied, that the proposed development as amended is consistent with the objectives of R4 High Density Residential Zone, which are: 

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.

To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

To encourage the supply of housing that meets the needs of the Sutherland Shire’s population, particularly housing for older people and people with a disability.

To promote a high standard of urban design and residential amenity in a high quality landscape setting that is compatible with natural features.

To minimise the fragmentation of land that would prevent the achievement of high density residential development.

9. The parties agree, and I am satisfied that the Amended DA is permissible with development consent in the R4 High Density Residential Zone of the SSLEP.

10. Under cl 2.6 of the SSLEP, the Site may be subdivided with development consent. The amended DA proposes, Strata subdivision and a condition has been agreed that requires a Plan of Subdivision to be submitted that conforms with the development consent.

11. Under cl 2.7 of the SSLEP, demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent. The amended DA proposes demolition of all existing structures on the Site.

12. Under cl 4.4 of the SSLEP, a maximum floor space ratio of 2:1 is permitted on the Site. The parties agree and I accept that the Amended DA complies with this development standard.

13. In deciding whether to grant development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the matters set out in cl 6.2(3) of the SSLEP. I am satisfied from the evidence, having regard to the amended DA, the stormwater drawings that accompanied the DA (as amended in accordance with the amended DA), the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI), the Geotechnical Report that accompanied the amended DA and the agreed conditions of consent, that the matters listed in cl 6.2(3) of the SSLEP have been adequately considered.

14. Under cl 6.4 of the SSLEP, the consent authority must be satisfied as to the matters set out in cl 6.4(3) of the SSLEP with respect to stormwater management. Having regard to the stormwater drawings that accompanied the DA (as amended in accordance with the Amended DA) and the agreed conditions of consent, I am satisfied as to the matters set out in cl 6.4(3) of the SSLEP.

15. Under cl 6.14 of the SSLEP, the minimum percentage of the Site that is to consist of landscaped area is 30%. The amended DA complies with this development standard, providing 34.5% of the Site as landscaped area on the ground floor.

16. Under cll 6.16 and 6.17 of the SSLEP, the consent authority must consider various matters relating to urban design. Having regard to the Statement of Environmental Effects that accompanied the DA and information provided by the Applicant for the purposes of the s 34 Conference, I am satisfied that the matters required to be considered under cll 6.16 and 6.17 of the SSLEP have been adequately considered in the assessment of the Amended DA.

17. The Height of Buildings Map referred to in cl 4.3(2) of the SSLEP shows that the maximum permissible height of buildings on the Site is 25m. The height of building development standard at cl 4.3 of the SSLEP is exceeded, and the Applicant relies upon a written request (the Request) prepared in accordance with cl 4.6 of the SSLEP, to justify the contravention authored by Planning Ingenuity and dated 29 May 2023.

18. As noted in the Request, the works proposed under the amended DA have a maximum height of 27.175m and a variation to the development standard is sought.

19. The proposed development attains a maximum height of 27.175m to the top of the lift overrun. There will be a breach of the prescribed maximum height limit by the lift overrun, stair access and pergola over the communal open space. Specifically, the breaches involve the following components of the building:

• Lift overrun (RL80.94) = breach of 2.175m (8.7%);

• Roof pergola (RL79.10) = breach of 0.425m (1.7%); and

• Roof top of wall (RL79.50) = breach of 0.438m (1.75%).

20. The Request considers compliance with the height standard to be unreasonable or unnecessary because the underlying objective or purpose of the relevant standards are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance.

21. As shown by Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 (“Initial Action”), an applicant need only establish one way, although if more ways are applicable, an applicant can demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in more than one way (Initial Action, at [22]).

22. I am satisfied that the objectives of the relevant standard are achieved in this case for the grounds set out in the Request. In summary:

• Objective (a)(i) – compatible with adjoining development: The siting and scale of the proposed development has been designed to distribute building mass in a manner that best minimises impact on adjoining development and achieves good levels of solar access and separation from neighbouring dwellings. The overall building height will be perceived as seven storeys which is the typical type and scale of building emerging in the area and anticipated by the building height control. It will therefore be a built form which is reasonably anticipated in the locality. The proposed development is in line with the desired future character of the locality and provides high quality residential accommodation that responds to the site topography.

• With regard to Objective (a)(ii), the desired future character can also be gleaned from the suite of built form controls that apply under the SSLEP and Sutherland Shire Development Control Plan 2015 (SSDCP) and from the zone objectives. In this regard, the zone objectives promote the provision of dwellings in a high-density residential area. The proposed development is a high-quality, well-designed scheme sited within a landscaped setting and is thus consistent with the vision for development in the R4 zone. Therefore objective (a) is met.

• Objective (b) seeks reasonable levels of solar access to buildings and the public domain: In terms of daylight access to buildings and the public domain, the proposed height non-compliance does not contribute towards any significant additional overshadowing of adjoining development. The site has a north-south orientation and as such, the majority of shadows fall within the site and to the south, south-west and south-east. The shadow diagrams provided with the plans demonstrate compliance with the SSDCP controls for solar access. The small portion of the building which is non-compliant with the height control does not result in overshadowing of surrounding residential properties beyond a compliant building given the site orientation. Therefore objective (b) is met.

• Objective (c) seeks to protect the views, privacy and solar access and visual impact of neighbours: Solar access is considered and found to be acceptable under objective (b). In terms of privacy, the non-compliance will not have any additional impacts on adjoining properties as the bulk of the non-compliance relates to the lift overrun, pergola and upper-level roof. The communal open space areas on the rooftop are within the centre of the rooftop and contain landscaped planter edges to reduce overlooking to the sides. The proposal will not compromise the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The examination of the proposal in this Request demonstrates that there will be no unreasonable detrimental impact to privacy and daylight access for neighbouring properties as a result of the non-compliant part of the building, nor will it be noticeable from any public space. Thus objective (c) is met.

• Objective (d) seeks to ensure the visual impact of buildings is minimised: Matters of visual bulk have largely been addressed in relation to objective (a). In essence, it is considered that the architectural treatment of the building in terms of setbacks, materials and viewing points from which the non-compliances would be seen, visual impacts will be minimal. The proposed development provides for a floor space ratio that complies with the maximum allowed under the SSLEP and provides setbacks to side boundaries that generally comply with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls. Furthermore, the scale of the building is consistent with emerging built form in the Precinct. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies objective (d).

23. I am also satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the height standard as required by cl 4.6(3)(b) of the SSLEP that may be summarised as follows:

1. The exceedance is limited to discrete portions of the lift overrun, roof pergola and upper-level roof over stair access, resulting in a relatively minor non-compliance of 2.175m (8.7%), 0.425m (1.7%) and 0.438m (1.75%), respectively;

2. The rooftop provides high quality communal open space and amenity for future occupants, relying on optimal, equitable access;

3. The proposed building envelope has been carefully considered and is supported by existing and approved developments in the locality with similar characteristics;

4. The additional visual bulk will not be perceptible, particularly as a result of its location on the roof, and will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and overlooking/privacy;

5. The non-compliant portion of the proposal contains no residential or habitable floor area;

6. Despite the minor non-compliance, the Amended DA achieves the objectives of the height of buildings development standard, as demonstrated in the Request;

7. To require a shorter building in the circumstances of this case would unreasonably result in fewer dwellings, thus adversely affecting the ability to achieve the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone under the SSLEP.

24. For the reasons given in [22], I consider the proposed development to be consistent with the objectives of the relevant standard, and I am satisfied that the objectives of the R4 zone, set out at [8], are also achieved.

25. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed development is in the public interest pursuant to cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of the SSLEP and raises no concern in respect of cl 4.6(5) that would preclude the grant of consent by the Court by reason of s 39(6) of the LEC Act.

26. For the reasons stated above, I find the Request to vary the height standard should be upheld.

Sutherland Development Control Plan 2015

27. The parties agree and I am satisfied that the relevant provisions of the SSDCP have been considered in the assessment of the Amended DA and that the proposed development is acceptable with respect to those provisions, in that the Amended DA either meets or achieves the objectives of relevant controls, consistent with ss 4.15(1)(a)(iii) and 4.15(3A) of the EPA Act.

28. In particular, the parties agree that the Applicant has complied with all requirements associated with site isolation planning principles and that the Amended DA and agreed conditions of consent will ensure that 684 and 686 Kingsway will not be isolated as a result of the proposed development under the Amended DA.

Public Interest

29. Council notified the DA from 14 October 2022 to 1 November 2023 in accordance with the Sutherland Shire Council Community Engagement Policy 2019 (Community Engagement Policy) and cl 7(1)(c) of Div 2 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 of the EPA Act.

30. Ten written submissions were received in response to the notification of the DA and a list of objectors, including all submissions, was filed with the Court on 12 April 2023. Further, the Court heard oral submissions from two objectors on-Site on 18 April 2023, at the commencement of the s 34 Conference.

31. Between 1 and 5 May 2023, Council notified the Amended DA, having regard to its Community Engagement Policy. I was provided with all resident submissions and having considered them, I am satisfied that there are no issues of public interest that warrant the refusal of the Amended DA in accordance with s 4.15(1)(e) of the EPA Act.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP)

32. Section 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP is relevant to the DA. Section 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP requires a consent authority to consider the contamination and remediation of land when determining a development application.

33. The DA was accompanied by a Preliminary Site Investigation which concluded that the Site has been used for residential purposes and consisted of three low density residential properties from at least 1961, there is no history to suggest that the Site is contaminated and the Site is suitable for the proposed development. The parties submit and I agree that the applicable provisions of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP have been considered and addressed.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

34. The former provisions, prior to 21 November 2022, of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP) apply to the Amended DA, pursuant to s 6.65 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP. The Site is mapped as being within the Georges River Catchment.

35. Having regard to the Amended DA, the stormwater drawings that accompanied the DA (as amended in accordance with the Amended DA), the PSI, the Geotechnical Report that accompanied the Amended DA and the agreed conditions of consent, I am satisfied that all matters required to be taken into account by the consent authority under Ch 11 (Georges River Catchment) under the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP have been taken into account.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

36. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) applies to the land.

37. An amended Design Verification Statement has been prepared that assesses the proposed development against the relevant design principles set out in State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 —Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development 2002 (SEPP 65), as well as the objectives and design criteria set out in the ADG. The parties submit and I accept that the proposed development as amended adequately meets the relevant requirements of both SEPP 65 and the ADG.

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

38. A BASIX certificate has been prepared for the Amended DA that satisfies the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

39. Chapter 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP) applies to the State of New South Wales and, accordingly, the Site. The DA was referred to Ausgrid under s 2.48 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP. Ausgrid raised no objection to the proposed development and its response has been incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent.

40. Further, the Site is in proximity to the Kingsway, which is identified on Council’s Road and Rail Noise Buffer Map as having an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles. The Site is also in proximity to the F6 Transport Reserve. An Acoustic Report that accompanied the DA and an addendum to the Acoustic Report that has accompanied the Amended DA address the requirements of s 2.120 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP.

41. Therefore, I am satisfied that the applicable provisions of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP have been considered and addressed and that the consent authority is satisfied as to all matters about which it is required to be satisfied under the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP.

Conclusion

42. 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.

43. 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.

Notes

44. The Court notes that:

1. Sutherland Shire Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 202 1NSW, to the Applicant amending Development Application No. DA-DA22/0890 in accordance with the following amended plans and documents:

1. The following amended architectural plans prepared by WMK Architecture:

Drawing No.	Drawing Title	Date
DA000, Issue E	Cover Sheet and Drawing List	30/05/2023
DA002, Issue C	Context Plan & Analysis	30/05/2023
DA003, Issue B	Survey Plan	30/05/2023
DA004, Issue C	Existing Site Plan	30/05/2023
DA005, Issue D	Demolition Plan	30/05/2023
DA006, Issue D	Proposed Site Plan	30/05/2023
DA100, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Basement 03	30/05/2023
DA101, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Basement 02	30/05/2023
DA102, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Basement 01	30/05/2023
DA103, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Ground Floor	30/05/2023
DA104, Issue F	General Arrangement Plan – Level 01-03	30/05/2023
DA105, Issue F	General Arrangement Plan – Level 04	30/05/2023
DA106, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Level 05	30/05/2023
DA107, Issue E	General Arrangement Plan – Level 06	30/05/2023
DA108, Issue C	General Arrangement Plan – Roof	30/05/2023
DA500, Issue F	North Elevation	30/05/2023
DA501, Issue F	South Elevation	30/05/2023
DA502, Issue F	East Elevation	30/05/2023
DA503, Issue F	West Elevation	30/05/2023
DA510, Issue B	Pinnacle Street – Streetscape Elevation	30/05/2023
DA600, Issue E	Long Section	30/05/2023
DA601, Issue E	Short Section	30/05/2023
DA602, Issue D	Façade Section	30/05/2023
DA610, Issue B	Basement Tunnel & Balcony Wall Details	30/05/2023
DA900, Issue D	Solar Access	30/05/2023
DA901, Issue D	Cross Ventilation	30/05/2023
DA902, Issue F	ADG Compliance Plans	30/05/2023
DA910, Issue E	Shadow Diagrams	30/05/2023
DA920, Issue C	ADG Diagrams – Views From Sun 1/4	30/05/2023
DA921, Issue C	ADG Diagrams – Views From Sun 2/4	30/05/2023
DA922, Issue C	ADG Diagrams – Views From Sun 3/4	30/05/2023
DA923, Issue C	ADG Diagrams – Views From Sun 4/4	30/05/2023
DA930, Issue E	GFA Diagram	30/05/2023
DA941, Issue E	DDA Compliance	30/05/2023
DA942, Issue D	DDA Compliance	30/05/2023
DA943, Issue B	DDA Compliance	30/05/2023
DA960, Issue D	Photomontage	30/05/2023

2. The following amended landscape plans prepared by RPS Australia East:

Drawing No.	Drawing Title	Date
DA 6 of 21, Revision K	Landscape Plan: Ground Floor	31 May 2023
DA 7 of 21, Revision K	Vegetation Management Plan: Ground Floor	31 May 2023
DA 8 of 21, Revision K	Soil Depth Plan: Ground Floor	31 May 2023
DA 9 of 21, Revision K	Landscape Plan: Level 4	31 May 2023
DA 10 of 21, Revision K	Landscape Plan: Rooftop	31 May 2023
DA 11 of 21, Revision K	Soil Depth Plan: Rooftop	31 May 2023
DA 12 of 21, Revision K	Landscape Sections	31 May 2023
Material & Finishes Layout Plan
Materials & Finishes
DA 15 of 21, Revision K	Planting Plans: Ground	31 May 2023
DA 16 of 21, Revision K	Planting Plans: Level 4	31 May 2023
DA 17 of 21, Revision K	Planting Plans: Rooftop	31 May 2023
Planting Palette
Maintenance
DA 20 of 21, Revision K	Details: Public Domain	31 May 2023
DA 21 of 21, Revision K	Details: Private Domain	31 May 2023

3. The following amended civil works drawings prepared by Smart Structures Australia:

Drawing No.	Drawing Title	Date
C00, Revision A	Cover Sheet, Locality Plan & Drawing Schedule	11.08.22
C01, Revision D	Civil Works Layout Plan	02.05.23
C02, Revision C	Typical Cross Sections	02.05.23
C10, Revision A	Typical Details	11.08.22
C11, Revision A	Typical Details Sheet 2	11.08.22

4. The following amended concept stormwater drawings prepared by Smart Structures Australia

Drawing No.	Drawing Title	Date
D00, Revision A	Cover Sheet, Legend and Drawing Schedule	20.07.22
D01, Revision B	Basement 3 Stormwater Drainage Plan	02.06.23
D02, Revision B	Basement 2 Stormwater Drainage Plan	02.06.23
D03, Revision B	Basement 1 Stormwater Drainage Plan	02.06.23
D04, Revision C	Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 1	02.06.23
D05, Revision B	Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 2	02.06.23
D10, Revision B	Pre & Post Development Catchment Plans and MUSIC Model Results	02.06.23
D13, Revision B	Stormwater Drainage Sections And Details Sheet 1	02.06.23
D14, Revision B	Stormwater Drainage Sections And Details Sheet 2	02.06.23
D20, Revision A	Erosion And Sediment Control Plans And Details	20.07.22

5. Amended Clause 4.6 Request regarding cl 4.3 of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 29 May 2023.

6. SEPP 65 Design Statement prepared by WMK Architecture, (Revision 3.0) dated 1 June 2023.

7. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Martens Consulting Engineers dated 8 May 2023.

Orders

45. The Court orders that:

1. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the development application pursuant to s 8.15(3) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of $12,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.

2. The Applicant’s written request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 29 May 2023, pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP), to vary the height of buildings development standard in cl 4.3 of the SSLEP is upheld.

3. The appeal is upheld.

4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No DA22/0890, for demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building, comprising seven storeys above ground, with three levels of basement parking, 36 residential apartments and associated landscaping, ancillary works and strata subdivision, at 15–19 Pinnacle Street, Miranda (Lots 11–13 in DP 11987), subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

L Sheridan

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

********

Decision last updated: 09 August 2023