Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council

[2022] NSWLEC 1256

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256

Hearing dates:

Conciliation conference on 12 May 2022

Date of orders:

23 May 2022

Decision date:

23 May 2022

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Bradbury AC

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development application No. DA292.1/2021 (as amended on 6 May 2022) for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of three, four storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 39 units over a common level of basement parking with 49 car parking spaces on the land described as Lot D Section 35 Deposited Plan 20450 (known as 147 Polding Street, Fairfield Heights), Lot I Section 35 DP 20450 (known as 1 Bodalla Street, Fairfield Heights) and Lot H Section 35 DP 20450 (known as 3 Bodalla Street, Fairfield Heights) is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – development application – residential flat building – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7, 8.10, 8.15

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, cll 3, 49, 50, 55, cl 2A(1) of Sch 1

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, Sch 6 Pt 1 cl 3

Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 6.9

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 -Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, cll 28(2), 30(2)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Kansanto Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Fairfield City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
V Conomos (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2021/262330

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application (DA) by Kansanto Pty Ltd (Applicant) for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of three, four-storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 39 units over a common level of car parking with 49 car parking spaces (Proposed Development).

2. The Proposed Development will be carried out on the land described as Lot D Section 35 DP 20450, known as 147 Polding St Fairfield Heights, Lot H Section 35 DP 20450, known as 3 Bodalla St Fairfield Heights and Lot I Section 35 DP 20450, known as 1 Bodalla St Fairfield Heights (Site).

3. The Site is located on the southern side of Polding St and adjoins a public laneway to the east. The Site is located immediately west of the Fairfield Heights town centre. It is an irregular shaped allotment with a frontage of 29.134 m to Polding St, a secondary frontage of 29.3 m to Bodalla St to the south and a side boundary of 100 m to the laneway to the east of the Site. The Site has a total area of 2,876.9 m².

4. The DA was made to the Council on 4 August 2021. When the DA had not been determined by the Council within the period after which it was taken to have been refused, on 14 September 2021 the Applicant appealed to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The appeal is an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction. In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the DA pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act.

5. The hearing commenced on site on 12 May 2022. The Court heard oral evidence from Mr Angelo and Mrs Lyn Panuccio who own several nearby properties. They expressed concerns about the on-street car parking in the area and I have set out those concerns in more detail at par [13(5)] below. The Court also viewed the Site and walked around the block bounded by Bodalla, Polding and Ann Streets and the unnamed lane which adjoins the Site.

6. Following the on-site component of the hearing, the parties requested that the Court arrange a conciliation conference pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference took place on 12 May 2022.  I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to each of them. The signed agreement was filed on 12 May 2022 and is supported by a Jurisdictional Statement provided by the parties on the same date.

7. The agreement involves the Court approving the DA, as amended with the agreement of the Council as consent authority pursuant to cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation), subject to conditions of consent. The EPA Regulation was repealed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (2021 Regulation) on 1 March 2022. However, the EPA Regulation continues to apply instead of the 2021 Regulation to a development application made but not finally determined before that date: 2021 Regulation, Sch 6 Pt 1 cl 3. The DA was made before but had not been finally determined by 1 March 2022, so the EPA Regulation continues to apply to the DA.

8. As originally lodged, the DA sought development consent for the demolition of all structures, removal of trees and vegetation, and construction of three x 4 storey residential flat buildings containing:

1. 44 units comprising 13 x 1 bedroom units, 21 x 2 bedroom units and 10 x 3 bedroom units;

2. Basement car park for 55 spaces (44 residential and 11 visitor spaces) including 6 accessible spaces;

3. Bicycle parking for 30 bicycles; and

4. Ground level communal open space.

9. The DA as amended on 6 May 2022 (Amended DA) reduces the total number of residential units, changes the mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units and reduces the parking available for both cars and bicycles. The Amended DA seeks consent for the demolition of all structures, removal of trees and vegetation, and construction of three x 4 storey residential flat buildings containing:

1. 39 units comprising 8 x 1 bedroom units, 20 x 2 bedroom units and 11 x 3 bedroom units;

2. Basement car park containing 49 spaces (39 residential and 10 visitor spaces) including 6 accessible spaces;

3. Bicycle parking for 20 bicycles; and

4. Ground level communal open space having an area of 725.7m².

10. The Proposed Development for which the Amended DA seeks development consent will increase the setback of buildings from the laneway, provide a footpath along the frontage to the laneway, improve ground level circulation and communal open spaces, reconfigure some units to provide additional north facing terraces, internalise the garbage room and incorporate the driveway into the built form.

11. The Council has informed the Court that the Amended DA satisfactorily resolves all of its contentions.

12. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

13. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. I am satisfied of this for the following reasons:

General

1. The appeal was brought pursuant to s 8.7 and was made within the time required by s 8.10, of the EPA Act.

2. The DA has been made with the consent of the owner of the Site in accordance with cl 49(1)(b) of the EPA Regulation.

3. Clause 2A(1) of Sch 1 to the EPA Regulation requires a development application for any BASIX affected development to be accompanied by a BASIX certificate for the development. The proposed development is a BASIX affected development as defined in cl 3(1) of the EPA Regulation. A BASIX Certificate (Certificate Number 1203203M_02) prepared by Sustainable Thermal Solutions dated 27 April 2022 accompanies the Amended DA.

4. The DA was notified by the Council for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2021 and 27 August 2021. The Council received one submission in relation to the DA. The Amended DA was also notified for a period of 14 days between 14 April and 28 April 2022. Three written submissions were received by the Council. The written submissions raise the following issues:

1. Excessive height, bulk and scale;

2. Noise from future residents;

3. Unsatisfactory car parking.

5. As noted above, at the commencement of the hearing, oral evidence was heard from Mr Angelo Panuccio and Mrs Lyn Panuccio. They both expressed concerns about the existing car parking situation in the local area. Their concerns included that the 2 hour parking limit is not enforced, that cars regularly park across driveways blocking access for residents and that speed bumps are required in Bodalla St to slow cars down. They point to the existing medical centre in Polding St as generating a large volume of traffic, much of which they say park on the street rather than in the medical centre’s on-site parking area. They are concerned that the existing unsatisfactory situation will be made worse if insufficient on-site parking is not provided in the Proposed Development.

6. I am satisfied that the parties’ agreement adequately takes into consideration the objections raised by the local residents. In this regard I note that:

1. the car parking proposed by the Amended DA complies with the relevant requirements of section 7.6.1 of the Fairfield Citywide Development Control Plan 2013 and it would be unreasonable to require more off-street car parking than required by that Plan;

2. to the extent that the objectors’ concerns relate to car parking associated with the existing medical centre situated on part of the Site, the Amended DA proposes the demolition of the medical centre as a part of the Proposed Development;

3. the Proposed Development complies with the relevant height and floor space ratio controls and its height, bulk and scale are of a scale that is contemplated by the planning controls for the Site;

4. in relation to noise, the Applicant has provided an acoustic assessment prepared by PKA Consulting dated 30 June 2021 which concludes that, based on the noise survey conducted by and calculations performed by PKA, “the proposed development will comply with the Noise Policy for Industry (2017) if the recommendations in the assessment are implemented”. An addendum to the report dated 27 April 2022 considers the Amended DA and makes some recommendations to address the emission of offensive noise from the Proposed Development. Conditions have been included in the proposed consent conditions to implement the recommendations in the acoustic assessment and addendum.

Site contamination

1. Section 4.6(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Hazards SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless—

(a)  it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)  if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)  if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

2. A Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by SLR dated January 2022 forms part of the DA. In addition, further information was submitted by SLR under cover of its memoranda dated 8 April 2022, 29 April 2022 and 3 May 2022. These documents indicate that the Site is subject to asbestos contamination. A Remediation Action Plan is included in the memorandum prepared by SLR dated 3 May 2022, and its requirements have been incorporated into the proposed consent conditions. I am satisfied that that the Site will be suitable for its proposed residential use after remediation and that the proposed conditions of consent will ensure that the Site is remediated before it is used for residential purposes.

Design Quality

1. The proposed development is a residential apartment development. State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) requires consideration and demonstration of the design quality of the development. There are three components to this:

• Clause 28(2) of SEPP 65 requires:

In determining a development application for consent to carry out development to which this Policy applies, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration)—

(a)  the advice (if any) obtained from the design review panel, and

(b)  the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

(c) the Apartment Design Guide.

• Clause 30(2) of SEPP 65 requires:

Development consent must not be granted if, in the opinion of the consent authority, the development or modification does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to—

(a)  the design quality principles, and

(b) the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria.

• Clause 50(1A) of the EPA Regulation provides that a development application that relates to residential apartment development must be accompanied by a statement by a qualified designer. The statement by the qualified designer must:

(a) verify that he or she designed, or directed the design, of the development, and

(b) provide an explanation that verifies how the development—

(i) addresses how the design quality principles are achieved, and

(ii) demonstrates, in terms of the Apartment Design Guide, how the objectives in Parts 3 and 4 of that guide have been achieved.” (cl 50(1AB) of the EPA Regulation).

2. The DA was not referred to a design review panel. The Applicant has provided the design verification statement required by cl 50(1A) of the EPA Regulation. The design verification statement was prepared by Christopher Jordan, a registered architect, and:

1. verifies that he directed the design of the Proposed Development;

2. shows how the design quality principles are achieved by the Proposed Development; and

3. demonstrates, in terms of the Apartment Design Guide, how the objectives in Parts 3 and 4 of that guide have been achieved.

3. I have considered the DA, including the amended architectural drawings and the Design Verification Statement. I have taken into consideration the design quality of the Proposed Development, when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide (as required by cl 28(2)). I am satisfied that the Proposed Development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the design quality principles and the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria (as required by cl 30(2)).

Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013

1. The Site is within Zone R4 High Density Residential under the Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP). The Proposed Development is permitted with development consent on land within that zone.

2. Clause 2.3(2) of the LEP provides that the consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within that zone. The objectives of R4 High Density Residential 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 maximise opportunities for increased development on all land by encouraging site amalgamations.

3. In determining the DA, I have had regard to, and am satisfied that the Proposed Development is consistent with those objectives. It will provide a variety of one, two and three bedroom apartments in three residential apartment buildings and involves the amalgamation of three existing allotments.

4. The Proposed Development complies with the applicable development standards in the LEP relating to building height (cl 4.3) and floor space ratio (cl 4.4). The height of the proposed development is approximately 12.6 metres above ground floor level which is less than the applicable maximum building height of 13 metres. The floor space ratio of the proposed development is 1.21:1 which is less than the maximum floor space ratio of 1.25:1 which applies to the Site.

5. Clause 6.9 of the LEP provides that development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available, or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

1. (a) the supply of water,

2. (b) the supply of electricity,

3. (c) the disposal and management of sewage,

4. (d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

5. (e) suitable vehicular access.

6. The Site is in an established urban area and I accept the joint position of the parties that all required services are available and will be constructed or supplied to a satisfactory level of compliance with the requirements of all relevant authorities.

Conclusion

14. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision. The parties have not raised, and I am not aware of, any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties. Further, in making the orders, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the DA against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

15. The Court notes that:

1. Fairfield City Council, as the relevant consent authority has agreed, pursuant to clause 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to amend Development Application No. DA292.1/2021 in accordance with the amended plans and documents listed below:

Plan name	Drawing Number	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Amended Architectural Plans
Site/Roof Plan	01	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Demolition Plan	02	Rev J	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Basement Floor Plan	03	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Ground Floor Plan Overall	04	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
First Floor Plan Overall	05	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Second Floor Plan Overall	06	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Third Floor Plan Overall	07	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block A Ground Floor Plan	08	Rev D	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block B Ground Floor Plan	09	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block C Ground Floor Plan	10	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block A Typical First-Third Floor Plan	11	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block B Typical First-Third Floor Plan	12	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Block C Typical First-Third Floor Plan	13	Rev I	21/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Elevations	14	Rev H	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
East Elevation Partial Block A	15	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
East Elevation Partial Block B	16	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
East Elevation Partial Block C	17	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
South Elevation Partial Block A	18	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
South Elevation Partial Block B	19	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
South Elevation Partial Block C	20	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
West Elevation Partial Block C	21	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
West Elevation Partial Block B	22	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
West Elevation Partial Block A	23	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
North Elevation Partial Block C	24	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
North Elevation Partial Block B	25	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
North Elevation Partial Block A	26	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Sections	27	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Section A Partial Block A	28	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Section A Partial Block B	29	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Section A Partial Block C	30	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Section B Partial Block A	31	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Section C Partial Block A	32	Rev F	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Area Diagrams	AREA01	Rev H	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Area Diagrams	AREA02	Rev H	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Areas Schedule	AREA 03	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 9am	SH01	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 10am	SH02	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 11am	SH03	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 12pm	SH04	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 1pm	SH05	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 2pm	SH06	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 3pm	SH07	Rev G	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 9am	SH08	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 10am	SH09	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 11am	SH10	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 12pm	SH11	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 1pm	SH12	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 2pm	SH13	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Shadow Diagram Neighbouring 3pm	SH14	Rev C	08/04/2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Perspective views	15/03/2022
External Finishes Schedule	March 2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Cover Sheet	L/00	Rev G	19/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Site Plan	L/01	Rev G	19/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 2	L/02	Rev F	11/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Landscape Plan Sheet 2 of 2	L/03	Rev F	11/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Planting Plan Sheet 1 of 2	L/04	Rev G	19/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Planting Plan Sheet 2 of 2	L/05	Rev G	19/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Plant Palette	L/06	Rev G	19/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Plant Palette	L/07	Rev F	11/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Plant Schedule	L/08	Rev F	11/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
Product Details	L/09	Rev F	11/04/2022	A Total Concept Landscape Architects
General Notes	C00.01	Rev D	27/04/2022	Engineering Studio
Roof Drainage, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan	C01.01	Rev D	27/04/2022	Engineering Studio
Ground Drainage Plan	C02.01	Rev D	27/04/2022	Engineering Studio
Basement Drainage Plan	C03.01	Rev D	27/04/2022	Engineering Studio
Stormwater Details Sheet	C04.01	Rev D	27/04/2022	Engineering Studio
Acoustic Report	ID No. 11921	Issue R01, Version 3	14/01/2022	PKA Acoustic Consulting
Addendum to Acoustic Report’	Reference No. PKA11921	R02v1	27/04/2022	PKA Acoustic Consulting
BASIX Certificate	No. 1203203M_02	27/04/2022
Operational Waste Management Plan	Report No. SO1014	Rev G	26/04/2022	Elephants Foot
Preliminary Site Investigation	Reference No. 610.30715-R01	Version v1.0	January 2022	SLR
Supplementary Investigation Report	03 May 2022	SLR
SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement	March 2022	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design
Traffic Impact Assessment	Reference No. 0378r01v02	22/06/2021	PDC Consultants
Swept Path Analysis Ground Level	001	09/02/2022	PDC Consultants
Swept Path Analysis Basement Level	002	09/02/2022	PDC Consultants
Swept Path Analysis Basement Level	003	09/02/2022	PDC Consultants
Urban Design Study	Rev A	17/02/2022	Smith & Tzannes
Letter of offer	09/05/2022	Sue Sanki, Director of Kansanto Pty Ltd
Land Dedication Plan	Rev A	06/05/22	Christopher Jordan Architecture & Design

2. The amended development application documents listed above were lodged on the NSW planning portal on 6 May 2022.

3. The Applicant filed the amended development application with the Court on 6 May 2022.

16. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development application No. DA292.1/2021(as amended on 6 May 2022) for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of three, four storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 39 units over a common level of basement parking with 49 car parking spaces on the land described as Lot D Section 35 Deposited Plan 20450 (known as 147 Polding Street, Fairfield Heights), Lot I Section 35 DP 20450 (known as 1 Bodalla Street, Fairfield Heights) and Lot H Section 35 DP 20450 (known as 3 Bodalla Street, Fairfield Heights) is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

…………………………

A Bradbury

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (314938, pdf)

**********

Amendments

30 May 2022 - The Court orders that:

See [2022] NSWLEC 1272 - (1)Pursuant to r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the judgment in Kansanto Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1256 is amended by replacing the reference to “DA 21/57” in order 2 and paragraph 15(1) with “DA 292.1/2021”.

Decision last updated: 30 May 2022