James v Inner West Council

[2023] NSWLEC 1314

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

James v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1314

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference 26 April and 18 and 29 May 2023

Date of orders:

21 June 2023

Decision date:

21 June 2023

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Espinosa C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The written requests under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 are upheld.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Application No. DA2022/0192, as amended, at 14C Jane Street, Balmain (Lot 13 DP 1041574) is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent contained at Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – alterations and additions – dual occupancy – floor space ratio development standard - heritage – parking and traffic control – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 37

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, cl 1.8A

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 34AA, 39

Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, Sch 5, cll 4.3, 4.3A, 4.4, 4.6, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4

Road Transport Act 2013, Sch 4, ss 41, 122, 273

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

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

Cases Cited:

HP Subsidiary Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 135

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

Makram Constructions Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (2002) 119 LGERA 42; [2002] NSWLEC 4

Tahany Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2022] NSWLEC 1363

Texts Cited:

Department of Planning & Environment NSW, Planning Circular PS 20-002 – Variations to development standards, 2020

Inner West Community Engagement Framework

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Stephen James (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
D Robertson (Applicant)
A Sinclair (Solicitor)(Respondent)

Solicitors:
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/329498

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of development application DA2022/0192 for alterations and additions to convert an existing dwelling into a dual occupancy, construction of a new swimming pool, a new garage off Fawcett Street, landscaping and associated works (the Proposed Development) at 14C Jane Street, Balmain legally described as Lot 13 in DP 1041574 (the Site).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 26 April, 18 May and 29 May 2023. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The parties’ experts agree that all contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 22 December 2022 by the Respondent, have been resolved by the:

1. amended and additional material provided by the Applicant during the course of the s 34AA conciliation conference process; and

2. agreed conditions of consent.

4. The amendments comprise the following changes to the Proposed Development:

1. Relocation of the stair at rear of the Residence 2 garage so that it now exits to the north and the private space for Residence 1 has been expanded to the east. The lot sizes and landscaping has been adjusted accordingly.

2. Deletion of proposed car turntable and vehicle access width adjusted, resulting in minor change to driveway levels.

3. Electricity pole currently situated in the proposed vehicular crossover at Fawcett Street has been shifted further to the south to accommodate appropriate sight lines for a car exiting the proposed driveway for Residence 2.

4. Reduced opening in the existing brick boundary fence to Fawcett Street from 9450mm to 5285mm (noting part of the wall will be rebuilt due to existing openings and condition).

5. Proposed walls around the proposed stairs from Fawcett Street to Lower Ground Level are now brick to match the existing brick boundary fence (dismantled brickwork is to be used).

6. The proposed extended windows on the first floor of Residence 1 have been amended such that they are 300mm above the floor level to allow the skirting to continue through and ensure these windows do not read as a door. The sill will be sandstone to match existing.

7. Shortened privacy screen to the first floor balcony with a view from the first floor balcony from 14B Janes Street shown on the plans.

8. Amended notations to include sizing of skylights.

9. Shadow diagrams have been updated to reflect the above amendments.

10. Details of the balcony screening and spiral stairs including a 1600mm high mesh privacy screen have been included.

5. On 30 May 2023, the parties filed an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act which involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application subject to conditions. 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.

6. 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. All relevant matters for consideration set out at s 4.15 of the EPA Act have been taken into consideration by the parties.

7. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act can be exercised. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed written Jurisdictional Note. I have considered the Jurisdictional Note and include relevant extracts and summaries in my reasons.

8. The Applicant is one of the owners of the Site and owner’s consent has been provided for the Proposed Development as evidenced on the Development Application Form filed with the Class 1 Application.

9. The notification requirements under the EPA Act have been satisfied because the Proposed Development was notified in accordance with the Inner West Community Engagement Framework (adopted November 2019) for a period of nineteen (19) days, from 7 April 2022 to 26 April 2022, during which time the Respondent received twenty-three (23) submissions. These submissions have been taken into consideration by the parties in entering into the s34 agreement.

10. In addition, the Respondent provided the amended plans to the resident objectors on a without prejudice basis and requested further submissions from 14 April 2023 to 20 April 2023, during which time the Respondent received three further submissions. These submissions have also been taken into consideration by the parties in entering into the s 34 agreement.

11. The conditions of development consent annexed to the Agreement are able to be lawfully imposed pursuant to s 4.17 of the EPA Act.

12. As part of the Proposed Development it will be necessary to install a ‘No Parking’ sign in Fawcett Street, starting 10m from the existing ‘No Parking’ zone located south of the proposed driveway and extending 12.6m north. Pursuant to s 122(b) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (RT Act), a person has appropriate authority to install or display a prescribed traffic control device if “the person is authorised in writing by Transport for NSW to install or display (or to interfere with, alter or remove) the device”. The parties agree for this matter to be dealt with by way of a condition of consent requiring the Proposed Development to be considered by the Inner West Traffic Committee.

13. Pursuant to s 4.6(1) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 the consent authority must not grant consent to development unless it has considered whether the subject land is or will be made suitable for the development. The parties have considered and agreed that the site is suitable for development having regard to the potential for contamination. I am satisfied because page 21 of the Statement of Environmental Effects supporting the Class 1 Application concludes that the Site is suitable for ongoing residential land use.

14. Pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the Proposed Development is a BASIX affected development, containing a BASIX affected building. The Applicant provided BASIX Certificate No. A446702 dated 24 January 2022 when the Development Application was lodged on 24 March 2022, which is within 3 months of the date of lodgement and that BASIC Certificate is filed with the Class 1 Application. The Applicant is not required to provide an updated BASIX certificate.

15. The Development Application was lodged with the Respondent Council prior to the coming into force of the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (IWLEP) and so, pursuant to cl 1.8A of the IWLEP, is to be determined as if it had not commenced.

16. The Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) therefore applies to the Proposed Development.

17. The Site is zoned R1 General Residential Zone and the use of the Site as a dual occupancy is permitted with development consent in the R1 General Residential zone.

18. The Site is not mapped under the Height of Buildings map and so the height of building development standard in clause 4.3 of the LLEP does not apply.

19. The Proposed Development provides for 20.2% of landscaped area in relation to the Site area complying with the landscaped area development standard at clause 4.3A of the LLEP.

20. The Site is not located within the flood planning area for the purposes of cl 5.21 of the LLEP.

21. The Site is mapped as Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils under cl 6.1 of the LLEP. An Acid Sulfate Soils management plan is not required to be prepared because the Proposed Development is not below 5 m AHD and will not lower the water table below 1m AHD on the adjacent Class 1 land at White Bay. I have considered the Statement of Environmental Effects filed with the Class 1 Application at page 23.

22. The Proposal involves earthworks which requires the consent authority to consider the matters at cl 6.2(3) of the LLEP. The additional excavation required is minor and the Court is satisfied that the matters listed at cl 6.2(3) have been adequately considered.

23. Clause 6.4(3) of the LLEP requires the consent authority to be satisfied of certain matters in relation to stormwater management before development consent can be granted. With reference to the requirements of cl 6.4(3), the Applicant relies on the Stormwater Plans and the Water Management Statement both filed with the Class 1 Application. A summary of the relevant considerations from the Water Management Statement is set out in the following table:

(a) is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting on-site infiltration of water	The Amended Application has been designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land.
(b) includes, if practicable, on-site stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water	Retention and absorption of surface water will be achieved by the design of cross falls on all new paving to allow it to drain to the plant beds alongside it rather than into the stormwater.
(c) avoids any significant adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.	The design does increase the paving on the property, however this paving has been designed to have plant beds along at least one side. All new paving will have a cross fall to facilitate the rain runoff into these planters, thus reducing the stormwater runoff from the paving on the Site.

Justification of the Contravention of the Floor Space Ratio development standard

24. The Proposed Development proposes a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9.1:1 on the Site. Clause 4.4(2B)(b)(iv) of the LLEP and the Floor Space Ratio map permits a maximum FSR of 0.7:1 accordingly, the Proposed Development contravenes the FSR development standard. The Applicant relies on a written request prepared by The Planning Studio dated September 2022 filed with the Class 1 Application, to justify this contravention pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LLEP (Written Request). The Written Request concludes on pages 7 to 9 that compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary having regard to the tests set out in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118. Sufficient environmental planning grounds are demonstrated to justify the contravention of the FSR development standard on pages 9 and 10 in that the particular circumstance of the proposal seeking to conserve and enhance an existing heritage item already exceeding the FSR control and the proposal results in a net reduction of floor space on the Site and will not result in any additional bulk or scale associated with the building.

25. The parties also consider that the Written Request establishes on pages 11 and 12 that 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 R1 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. The concurrence of the Planning Secretary is not required having regard to Planning Circular PS 20-002 dated 5 May 2020.

26. The Court is satisfied that the applicant’s Written Request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.4 of the LLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of the LLEP and that the proposed development would 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.

Heritage consideration pursuant to cl 5.10 of the LLEP

27. The Site is identified as a local heritage item, being the “Former convent and fence, including interiors” as listed in Sch 5 of the LLEP (item I249). The Site is also located in the Balmain East Heritage Conservation Area listed in Sch 5 of the LLEP.

28. Clause 5.10(4) of the LLEP requires that “the consent authority, must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned”. The Applicant relies on a Heritage Impact Statement and an Addendum to that Statement filed with the Class 1 Application and the parties have considered the effect of the Proposed Development on the heritage significance of the Site as well as the Balmain East Heritage Conservation Area.

Traffic Controls

29. Part of the Amended Application includes changes to resolve contention 1 (Traffic & Parking) of the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed by the Respondent.

30. The experts agreed in the Traffic Joint Expert Report filed 20 April 2023 at paragraphs 3.1.4 and 5.1.1-5.1.7 that a modification of parking restrictions along Fawcett Street will be required to facilitate satisfactory vehicle access and egress from the Site. It was agreed between the experts that this could be achieved by a 12.6 metre “No Parking” zone, for which consent is sought.

31. A “No Parking” zone is to be indicated by way of installation of signage which is a prescribed traffic control device pursuant to the RT Act. The installation and display of prescribed traffic control device is controlled by the provisions of s 122 of the RT Act which provides as follows:

122   Appropriate authority for the purposes of this Division

(STM Act, s 51)

For the purposes of this Division, a person has appropriate authority to install or display (or to interfere with, alter or remove) a prescribed traffic control device if—

(a) the person is a public authority that has been directed by Transport for NSW under Part 2A, Division 3 of Schedule 1 to the Transport Administration Act 1988 to install or display (or to interfere with, alter or remove) the device, or

(b)    the person is authorised in writing by Transport for NSW to install or display (or to interfere with, alter or remove) the device, or

(c)     the person is permitted or required to remove the device by or under section 124.

32. On 31 October 2011, Council was delegated certain powers by the Road and Maritime Services (RMS) (and now Transport for NSW (TfNSW)) in respect of certain aspects of the control of traffic on local roads (Delegation).

33. Pursuant to the Delegation and Sch 4, s 41 Savings of the RT Act, Council is taken to be a delegate of TfNSW under s 273 of the RT Act of the function to authorise the installation or display of a “no-parking” sign under s 122 of that Act.

34. The Delegation is subject to the limitations set out in Schedule 4 of the Delegation. The Council must not exercise the function to authorise the installation of a “no parking” sign unless if follows the unanimous advice of the Traffic Committee, or if this does not occur, Council has notified the Commissioner of Police and TfNSW and must not exercise the function for 14 days after the notification.

35. The Court can exercise the functions of Council under the RT Act, pursuant to s 39(2) of the LEC Act. The question raised by the Respondent is whether the exercise of those functions is subject to the same limitations as set out in the Delegation: Makram Constructions Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (2002) 119 LGERA 42; [2002] NSWLEC 4 (“Makram”) at [50] – [54] and Tahany Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2022] NSWLEC 1363 (“Tahany”) at [29].

36. Section 39(2) of the LEC Act reads as follows:

39 Powers of Court on appeals

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

37. Makram, obiter remarks by Bignold J at [53] and [54]:

“53. Rather, in such circumstances, the conventional approach to the interpretation and application of s 39(2) is that, except where the Court’s powers are expressly enlarged (eg by s 39(6) and (6A)), the Court has the same powers (including the same duties and limitations on those powers) as are vested in the Council.

54. Since there is nothing in the present case that would justify or require any departure from that conventional approach, I would accordingly answer this question in the affirmative but only in the sense that in exercising the available power, the Court would be bound to observe all of the limitations that are imposed on the power vested in the Council by virtue of the Delegation.”

38. Tahany is a decision of Commissioner Dickson:

“29 Applying Connery v Manly Council (1999) 105 LGERA 451, Goldberg v Waverley Council [2007] NSWLEC 259 and Makram Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2002] NSWLEC 4, I am satisfied that the Court can exercise the functions of Waverley Council under the Roads Act. However, the exercise of those functions is such to the same limitations as the Council’s formal delegation pursuant to the Road Transport Act 2013 (Transport Act). The relevant delegation is extracted in Ex 3. Relevantly, the delegation allows the Council to exercise the functions of the Roads and Maritime Service (nowTfNSW ) to approve traffic control devices. However, the delegation is limited by a number of conditions, including:

…

7. A Council or its sub-delegate must not exercise a function until they have notified the Commissioner of Police and RMS of any decision taken the exercise a function except where:

(1) the advice of the Local Traffic Committee is unanimous; and

(2) the Council or its subdelegate propose to follow such advice

…”

39. In Tahany, the relevant Traffic Committee unanimously resolved to support the introduction of angled spaces if the subject development was approved, accordingly Dickson C was not required to consider this issue any further.

40. HP Subsidiary Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 135 (“HP Subsidiary”), a decision of Preston CJ, is relied on by the Applicant for the proposition that the Court is able to determine the development application by way of approval and it is open for the Court to impose any requirement for consent, approval or authorisation pursuant to s 122 of the RT Act as an operational condition of consent to be satisfied prior to the issue of any occupation certificate. This is consistent with the findings and approach of Preston CJ in HP Subsidiary. At [109] and [112] – [113];

“109 …The Council noted that HP Subsidiary will need to obtain authorisation under s 122 of the Road Transport Act 2013 to install the traffic control devices of the median island and No U-turn sign in Hill Road and approval under the Roads Act 1993 to carry out such roadworks in Hill Road. Obtaining this authorisation and approval may take some time. The power to issue authorisation under s 122 of the Roads Act 1993 is delegated to a Local Traffic Committee that includes four members, only one of whom is a representative of the Council, and is subject to limitations. The Council has no control over the process. There is no certainty that the necessary authorisation will be issued….”

“112 I agree with HP Subsidiary that it is not necessary to impose a deferred commencement condition and it will be sufficient to impose an operational condition of consent that the traffic control devices must be installed before an occupation certificate can be issued for the proposed development. This will ensure that there will be no resident-generated traffic from the development before the traffic control devices are operational to control such traffic.

113 Any risk associated with carrying out construction of the development before the traffic control devices have been approved and installed, such as not being able to obtain or a delay in obtaining the necessary authorisation and approval of the traffic control devices, will be borne by HP Subsidiary. It must decide if it is inclined to or can afford to take that risk. If it does not wish to take the risk, it can defer commencement of construction of the development until it has obtained the necessary authorisation and approval of the traffic control devices.”

41. The parties agree that the Court is able to determine the Class 1 Appeal by way of grant of development consent and that it is open for any requirement for consent, approval or authorisation pursuant to s 122 of the RT Act to be imposed as an operational condition of consent to be satisfied prior to the issue of any occupation certificate. This is consistent with the findings and approach in HP Subsidiary as well as the established approach of the Court with respect to such matters in its Class 1 jurisdiction.

42. On 15 May 2023, the Inner West Traffic Committee considered the proposal for the installation of a “no-parking” sign on the western side of Fawcett Street along the frontage of 14C Jane Street and determined to defer the meeting for approximately three weeks following the completion of further community engagement. For the avoidance of doubt, this community engagement is not a jurisdictional requirement and is separate to the notification requirements under the EPA Act.

43. 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.

44. 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.

Notations:

45. The Court notes that:

1. The Respondent has agreed, under section 37 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending Development Application No. 2022/0192 to rely on the amended plans and documents specified in the table below:

Document/Plan, Revision and Issue No.	Document/Plan Name	Date	Prepared by
DA00 Rev D	Cover Sheet	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA01 Rev E	Site Plan	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA02 Rev D	Coverage & Landscape	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA03 Rev D	Floor Area Calculations	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA04 Rev D	Fawcett St Level	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA05 Rev D	Lower Ground Garden	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA06 Rev D	Lowe Ground Building	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA07 Rev D	Ground Level	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA08 Rev C	Mezzanine Level	07/02/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA09 Rev D	First Floor Level	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA10 Rev D	Roof Plan	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA11 Rev B	Section 1	07/02/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA12 Rev D	Section 2 Garden	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA13 Rev D	Section 2 Building	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA14 Rev C	Section 3	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA15 Rev B	Section 4	07/02/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA16 Rev D	East Elevation & Materials	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA17 Rev D	South Elevation	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA18 Rev B	West Elevation	07/02/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA19 Rev D	North Elevation	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA20 Rev D	House South Elevation	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA21 Rev D	Perspective Views	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA22 Rev C	March Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA23 Rev C	March Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA24 Rev C	March Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA25 Rev C	March Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA26 Rev C	June Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA27 Rev C	June Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA28 Rev C	June Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA29 Rev C	June Shadow Diagrams	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA30 Rev B	Dividing wall detail	07/02/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA31 Rev A	Privacy screen detail 1	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
DA32 Rev A	Privacy screen detail 2	03/03/23	Paul Davies Pty Ltd
006	B85 Design Vehicle Exit Movement and Sight Line Assessment with Retention of Two Small Car Spaces to Immediate South of Driveway	19/04/23	PDC Consultants
-	Statement of Environmental Effects	March 2022	The Planning Studio
Ref. 71508 BW	Survey Plan	5/11/2021	Harrison Friedmann & Associates Pty Ltd
HLA_ 14JS_001	Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 2	January 2022	Hazelwood Landscape Architecture
HLA_ 14JS_002	Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 2	January 2022	Hazelwood Landscape Architecture
HLA_ 14JS_003	Indicative Plant Schedule	January 2022	Hazelwood Landscape Architecture
SWDA 1.1 Rev P1	Stormwater Drainage Services Coversheet and Drawing Legend	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
SWDA 1.2 Rev P1	Stormwater Management Plan and General Notes	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
SWDA 1.3 Rev P1	Stormwater Drainage Services Erosion & Sediment Control Plan and Details	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
SWDA 1.4 Rev P1	Stormwater Drainage Services Existing & Proposed Impervious Areas	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
SWDA 1.5 Rev P1	Stormwater Drainage Services Ground and Lower Ground Floor Layouts	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
SWDA 1.6 Rev P1	Stormwater Drainage Services Details Sheet	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
CDA 1.1 Rev P1	Driveway Access Layout and Longitudinal Section	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
CDA 1.1 Rev P1	Driveway Access Turn Pat	1/02/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
A446702	BASIX Certificate	24/01/2022	Partridge Hydraulic Services
-	Site Waste Minimisation and Management Plan	27/06/2022	Stephen & Penelope James
AIA-01, Revision A	Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report	1/02/2022	Arterra Design Pty Ltd

2. The Applicant has filed the plans and other documents in the table above with the Court on 3 November 2022 and 26 April 2023.

Orders:

46. The Court orders that:

1. The written requests under clause 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 are upheld.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Development Application No. DA2022/0192, as amended, at 14C Jane Street, Balmain (Lot 13 DP 1041574) is determined by grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent contained at Annexure A.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

329498.22 Annexure A

**********

Decision last updated: 21 June 2023