MAA Consultancy Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1450

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	MAA Consultancy Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1450
Hearing dates:	31 July 2019; 1 August 2019
Date of orders:	24 September 2019
Decision date:	24 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Bish C
Decision:	The Court orders: (1)   The appeal is upheld. (2)   Modification Application 731.2/2011 for use of existing, unauthorised works relating to extensions of a two storey dwelling including creating a dining area, additional bedroom and alfresco area on Lot 105 DP 1159914, also known as 23 Cuthbert Crescent, Edensor Park is approved subject to conditions set out in Annexure A. (3)   The exhibits, except for Exhibits A, C, 3 and 4 are returned.
Catchwords:	MODIFICATION APPLICATION – continuing residential use – FSR exceedance – insufficient landscaping – OSD requirement – existing unapproved works – substantially the same
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Cases Cited:	Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280 The Satellite Group (Ultimo) Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [1998] NSWLEC 244
Texts Cited:	Fairfield City Centres Policy 2015 Fairfield City Wide Development Control Plan 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	MAA Consultancy Pty Ltd (Applicant) Fairfield City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Wilcher, (Solicitor) (Applicant) S Shneider, (Solicitor) (Respondent)   Solicitors: Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant) Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/369467
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against refusal of Modification Application (MA) 731.2/2011 by Fairfield City Council (hereafter the Council) for the use of existing, unauthorised works relating to extension of a two storey dwelling including creating a dining area, additional bedroom and alfresco area and new landscaping on Lot 105 DP 1159914, also known as 23 Cuthbert Crescent, Edensor Park (hereafter the site).

Background

2. MA 731.2/2011 was submitted to Council on 15 October 2018, and following notification, no submissions in objection were received.

3. The Applicant appealed against the refusal of the MA, pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The Land and Environment Court (the Court) subsequently ordered a conciliation between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act), which commenced as a site view on 31 July 2019, and terminated on the same day after the parties could not reach an agreement. Pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b)(i), the hearing was held forthwith before me as the presiding commissioner.

4. As the works which are the subject of the MA are already constructed, the MA under appeal was amended, after the conciliation and before the hearing by the Applicant, to seek consent for the use of these unauthorised works. The MA was amended, with leave granted by the Court and not opposed by the respondent, to reflect the jurisdictional requirement of s 4.55(1A) of the EPA Act, under which this appeal is sought.

5. The amended MA seeks to modify consent of development application (DA) 731.1/2011, specifically for the use of internal and external changes already constructed (referred to as the unauthorised works) and construct new landscaping.

The Site

6. The site is a slightly irregular, rectangular shape oriented northeast-southwest, covering a total area of 601m², with a cross fall across the site in a northerly direction. The site fronts for a length of 16.19m and drains towards Cuthbert Crescent.

7. The site is currently occupied by a newly constructed, two and three storey dwelling used for residential purposes with basement garaging and storage. The existing dwelling is centrally located on the site with an elevated pool at the rear that is separated from the dwelling by an at grade level tiled alfresco area. The majority of the site around the dwelling is currently paved, with a small area of landscaping in the front of the site, and some planter boxes along the rear and side boundaries.

8. The character of the area is historically single storey dwellings, although it is agreed between the parties these dwellings are increasingly being replaced by larger two and three storey ‘grandiose’ dwellings, which dominate the lot, similar in presentation to dwelling on the site under appeal.

The proposal under appeal and issues for the Court’s consideration

9. It is a matter of fact that the Applicant during the construction of the approved dwelling under consent DA 731.1/2011 undertook changes to the approved plans, and constructed works not in accordance with the consent as granted, being unauthorised works. It was advised to the Court by the Applicant during the site visit, that he was the owner/builder and therefore undertook the decision to construct these unauthorised works and accepts they did not form part of the approved design.

10. The parties agree that the appeal seeks (residential) use of all unauthorised works, and the proposed changes to the landscaped area. The MA under consideration of the Court seeks to regularise the use of these unauthorised works, as the granting of a modification application is prospective in its operation and does not render lawful any past illegality (unauthorised works).

11. Pursuant to s 6.23 of the EPA Act, a building information certificate (which has both a retroactive and proactive effect) must be sought in respect of the unauthorised building work under appeal. The parties agree that to date, no application has been made for a building information certificate (BIC) for the unauthorised works on the site, and it is accepted this is not the subject of this appeal. The Court therefore makes no judgment here as to the appropriateness for Council to issue a BIC upon application for these unauthorised works.

12. In the interest of procedural fairness, the Court granted several adjournments to allow the Applicant to amend the application to ensure consistency with the powers of the Court under this appeal. It is noted that these amendments were not objected to by the Respondent.

13. Specifically, the Applicant seeks and is granted leave by the Court to amend the MA as follows:

1. Section 2.1, delete ‘ retention’ and replace with ‘use’

2. Section 2.1.1, modify approved basement/garage additional powder room to 3.9m².

3. Section 2.1.2, modify approved ground floor (as built) by creation of dining room on the North-west boundary by 27.9m²; extend where study room and bath created on the south-east boundary by 9.9m²; and bath room to 2.9m²;

4. Section 2.1.3, modify first floor as built extra bed room on the North-west boundary mainly bed 2 to 23.6m²; bedroom 5 on the South-east created by 4.9m²; main bath room South-east to 4.9m²; also create a store room on the South-east by 3.8m².

5. Section 2.1.4, modify total additional floor space to 81.8m².

6. Section 2.1.5, modify as built finished floor level (FFL) to 63.59m Above Height Datum, AHD (approved at 63.6m AHD).

7. Section 2.1.6, modify as built Level 1A FFL to 66.48m AHD (approved at 66.5m AHD).

8. Section 2.1.7, modify as built roof ridge FFL to 73.67m AHD (approved at 73.00m AHD).

9. Section 2.1.8, relocate water tank to the drive way.

10. Section 2.1.9, modify as built swimming pool to 26.7m².

11. Section 2.10,    amend alfresco barbecue area 50.5m².

12. Section 2.11,    amend landscape area, as described in the Landscape Plan L1.1 Rev B, dated 2 August 2019 by Lara’s Design Studio.

14. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the landscape plan to reflect existing structures on the site and to remove existing tiling where identified to provide for a minimum 30% of ‘soft soil’ coverage across the site area (tendered as Exhibit C).

15. Further to this, based on evidence of the experts and as result of the amended plans, the parties sought to amend the draft conditions of consent. The Court grants leave to rely on these amended conditions of consent, which replace Exhibit 4.

16. The amended landscape plan and conditions of consent resolve the relevant contentions for landscape and stormwater management raised by Council in the amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (SoFC).

17. The parties agree that the existing residential dwelling now exceeds, by less than 0.1m, the development standard for height (of 9m), pursuant to cl 4.3 of the Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2012 (FLEP). The parties however accept that the elements of the dwelling that are the subject of the MA under appeal, do not result in the breach of the height standard. This nominal breach in the height standard is therefore not pressed in the appeal of the MA.

18. The parties agree that the basement storage room (as approved) can currently potentially be used as a ‘cinema room’. The Applicant agrees to delete and remove any modifications (from what is already approved under the existing consent) to this room, by condition of consent in the MA, and thus revert this area for the use of storage only, as approved under the previous consent.

19. Before judgment was reserved, on the Court’s direction, the Applicant filed the following documents on 8 August 2019 to which the Court grants leave to rely on:

1. an amended BASIX certificate, which appends to Exhibit A, as supporting documents to the MA under appeal,

2. a further amended landscape plan, which replaces Exhibit C, and

3. further amended conditions of consent, replacing Exhibit 4.

20. The changes made to the MA and landscape plan in Exhibits A and C are considered minor, within the meaning of the s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act.

21. The contentions that remain as described in the amended SoFC, dated 12 June 2019 are: modified development not substantially the same as approved; exceedance in floor space ratio (FSR); and inconsistency with objectives for dwellings in the R2 zone, with respect to bulk and scale.

Relevant Planning Controls

22. The requirements of s 4.55(1A) of the EPA Act are relevant for the Courts consideration in the granting of this MA under appeal, as follows:

4.55 Modification of consents—generally (cf previous s 96)

…

(1A) Modifications involving minimal environmental impact A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Subsections (1), (2) and (5) do not apply to such a modification.

(2) Other modifications A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 4.8) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.

(3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15 (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

(4) The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

….

23. The parties agree that the requirements of s 4.55(1A)(c) of the EPA Act have been satisfied, as the MA was notified according to the requirements of the relevant development control plan.

24. The primary contention that the Court must address for the granting of this consent relates to the satisfaction of s 4.55(1A)(b) and s 4.55(1A)(a) of the EPA Act.

25. Section 4.69 of the EPA Act deals with the powers of the Court to determine use of unlawful (authorised works), which the MA was amended to be consistent with:

4.69 Uses unlawfully commenced (cf previous s 109A)

(1) The use of a building, work or land which was unlawfully commenced is not rendered lawful by the occurrence of any subsequent event except:

(a) the commencement of an environmental planning instrument which permits the use without the necessity for consent under this Act being obtained therefor, or

(b) the granting of development consent to that use.

(2) The continuation of a use of a building, work or land that was unlawfully commenced is, and is taken always to have been, development of the land within the meaning of and for the purposes of any deemed environmental planning instrument applying, or which at any time applied, to or in respect of the building, work or land.

26. Clause 2.1 of the FLEP describes relevant land use zones. The site is located within an R2 Low Density Residential zone, with the objectives of this zone are established in cl 2.3 as follows:

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

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

27. The unauthorised works result in an exceedance in the FSR to 0.57:1 (without the area of the cinema room) from the specified FSR for this zone (of 0.45:1), as shown in the Floor Space Ratio Map, pursuant to cl 4.4 of the FLEP. The objectives of this standard are as follows:

4.4 Floor space ratio

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate density of development consistent with the established centres hierarchy,

(b) to ensure building density, bulk and scale make a positive contribution toward the desired built form as identified by the established centres hierarchy.

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

28. Where there is an exceedance in a development standard, the Court must be satisfied that the requirements of cl 4.6 of the FLEP are satisfied:

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii) 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 zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

29. The breach in a development standard caused by the unauthorised works that are the subject of a modification application are not subject to the tests of satisfaction as described in cl 4.6 of the FLEP, as the MA under appeal does not seek to vary the breached development standard. Clause 4.6 specifically refers to consideration of a development consent, and the Court is not consenting to the unauthorised works themselves, only to the use of these works. The parties agree that a ‘cl 4.6 written request’ is not for the Court’s consideration and there is no work to do for the Court to address a breach in FSR as part of the MA under appeal with respect of a cl 4.6 request for variation of the development standard.

30. The Court must, however, still be satisfied that the breach in FSR is not inconsistent with the FSR standard objectives, pursuant to cl 4.4(1) of the FLEP, and the requirements of s 4.55(1A) of the EPA Act.

31. Although there is no definition of ‘soft soil’ in the FLEP, it defines ’landscaped area’ as follows:

landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.

32. The controls of the Fairfield Development Control Plan 2012 (FDCP) that the Council contends are not satisfied by the MA, include those relating to: FSR; building bulk and scale; landscaping and private open space (PoS); and stormwater management.

Evidence

33. The Court heard evidence from the following planning experts: Ms Kylie Dorsett for the Applicant; and Mr Glenn Apps for the Respondent.

Is the consent as modified substantially the same development as originally approved?

34. This is a key contention raised by Council, as described in the SoFC. It relates primarily to the exceedance in the FSR standard, pursuant to cl 4.4 of the FLEP, that is a result of the unauthorised works, the subject of the appeal. The Council contends that the exceedance in FSR is approximately 20%, (without consideration of the cinema room that was removed from the MA under appeal), which results in a development that is not substantially the same as approved under consent DA 731.1/2011 (which the parties agree did not breach the FSR standard based on the design approved).

35. The Court must assess the use of the unauthorised works and not the structures themselves, which are not for the Court’s consideration under this appeal. Therefore, the Court must address to its satisfaction whether the use of these unauthorised works results in a development that is substantially different from that approved, being for residential purpose.

36. Guidance on the assessment of the concept of ‘substantially the same’, as required by the Court to be satisfied to grant consent, pursuant to s 4.55(1)(b) of the EPA Act, is provided in Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council(1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280 (Moto Projects), where at [54] to [56], Bignold J explains the requirements as follows:

“54. The relevant satisfaction required by s 96(2)(a) to be found to exist in order that the modification power be available involves an ultimate finding of fact based upon the primary facts found. I must be satisfied that the modified development is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

55. The requisite factual finding obviously requires a comparison between the development, as currently approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The result of the comparison must be a finding that the modified development is “essentially or materially”” the same as the (currently) approved development.

56. The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as currently approved and modified where that comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather, the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted).”

37. Further to this, Bignold J in Moto Projects at [67] explores The Satellite Group (Ultimo) Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [1998] NSWLEC 244 (unreported 2 October 1998) by Talbot J, whereby the Court must relevantly consider the element of the change in the development that is under appeal:

“67. In the course of considering whether the statutory requirement of s 96(2)(a) had been satisfied, his Honour said:

It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to attempt to confine the consideration of the extent of changes to the context of the whole building, notwithstanding that the consent authority is required to consider the totality of the development as proposed for modification and to take into consideration such of the matters referred to in s 79C (formerly s 90) as are of relevance to that development. The focus may be on a critical element of a building which is to be the subject of change in order to determine whether the entire development is substantially the same development.”

38. The objectives of cl 4.4 of the FLEP refer to ‘established centres hierarchy’. Neither the parties nor the Court could address any direct reference to this phrase in relevant planning literature, although the respondent postulated that it perhaps related to ‘zonal hierarchy’. The only reference that the Court is able to cite of some relevance, is in the Fairfield City Centres Policy 2015, published by Fairfield City Council. The reference here is to these ‘centres’ which appears to relate to development within a B2 zone, namely the four main commercial centres, with no reference found for development in the R2 zone, as specific to the site.

39. It is therefore considered that the FSR objectives in cl 4.4 of the FLEP that relate to ‘established centres hierarchy’ are not relevant for the Court’s consideration in this appeal. This applied to the FSR objectives in their entirety, as described in cl 4.4 of the FLEP.

40. The Fairfield City Wide Development Control Plan 2013 (FDCP) describes the requirements for a dwelling with regards to FSR in Chapter 5A, section 2.1 as follows:

“5A.2.1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Objective

Ensure building bulk, site coverage and open space provisions are compatible with neighbouring development.

Controls

a) The maximum permissible floor space ratio for any development must comply with the floor space ratio standards prescribed on the Fairfield LEP 2013 Floor Space Ratio Map. The most common maximum floor space ratio for a detached single dwelling house development is 0.45:1

b) Calculation of Floor Space Ratio must comply with the Floor Space Ratio provisions defined in clause 4.5 Calculation of Floor Space Ratio and Site Area of the Fairfield LEP 2013.

c) Due to site constraints and other requirements of this plan, the maximum FSR will not always be achieved on every development site.”

41. FSR is one of a number of the elements of design that the FDCP adopts to assess bulk and scale of a development. The planning experts agree that there are no other relevant numeric controls as specified in the FDCP that are breached by the unauthorised works and which relate to bulk and scale.

42. The experts also agree that the unauthorised works do not result in a change in primary use of the approved development, which remains for residential purposes. However, the respondent contends that the loss of the courtyard as private open space results in a development not substantially the same as approved, as its use for this specific purpose is not the same.

43. The experts agree that the unauthorised works do not result in a dwelling that is out of character for the area. These unauthorised works, the subject of the appeal, are not visible from the street and do not change the presentation of the building to the street, except to the adjoining neighbour, which is itself under construction of similarly large dwelling on its site.

44. I am satisfied that the unauthorised works, the subject of the appeal, are for a use that is substantially the same as approved. There is no contention that the proposed new landscaping is not ‘substantially the same’, as they reflect consistency with the original approval, including ensuring no requirement for onsite stormwater storage. The use of the unauthorised works (and landscaping) will remain for residential purpose and there is no intensification of that use. Therefore, s 4.55(1A)(b) of the EPA Act is satisfied.

Does the consent as modified have minimal environmental impact?

45. It is acknowledged that this was not a specific contention raised by Council, however it is a requirement of the Court to be satisfied to grant consent to the MA under appeal, pursuant to s 4.55(1A)(a) of the EPA Act.

46. Whilst the experts disagree how the loss of the courtyard as a private open space affects the site as a whole, the experts do agree that there will be no amenity impact from the use of unauthorised works under appeal. The loss of the courtyard by the conversion of this space to a dining room (ground floor) and bedroom (first floor) does not result in a reduction of solar access externally/internally and there is sufficient landscape area, based on the amened landscape plan, with improved landscaping along the sides of the dwelling to soften the added bulk to this area of the dwelling. The dining and bedroom areas will be used for residential purpose.

47. The alfresco area was and will continue to be used by the residents of the dwelling, albeit with a varied area, and the experts do not contend there will be any acoustic or privacy impact from the change in areal dimension to this space. The proposed changes to the amended landscape plan at the rear of the site will improve the amenity of this alfresco space and increase privacy to areas external to the dwelling.

48. The internal changes to the dwelling by the unauthorised works that increase and create bathroom/storage space do not result in any amenity impacts to residents of the dwelling or externally, and their use will remain the same.

49. The parties agree there are no visual or physical impacts as a consequence of the unauthorised works under appeal.

50. The experts agree upon questioning that the unauthorised works result in minimal environmental impact.

51. I am satisfied that the use of the unauthorised works and proposed landscaping, the subject of the MA under appeal, will have minimal environmental impact, and is consistent with s 4.55(1A)(a) of the EPA Act.

Have the objectives of the FDCP been satisfied?

52. The Council contends that as a result of the unauthorised works under appeal, the objectives for a dwelling house in an R2 zone have not been satisfied, as described in Chapter 5A, section 0.2, specifically (c) and (d) below:

“5A.0.2 Objectives

The general objectives of this Chapter are:

a) To provide controls for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

b) To ensure that new detached single dwelling house development provides a desired standard of amenity for occupants.

c) To mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land and the wider environment from new detached single dwelling house development.

d) To ensure that new detached single dwelling house development makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and neighbourhood.”

53. The experts agree, and I concur, that the use of the unauthorised works under appeal does not result in adverse amenity impacts, either externally or internally, and are not out of character for the local area. There are no visual changes to the streetscape and neighbourhood as a result of the use of works under appeal.

54. Therefore, I am satisfied that the use of the unauthorised works under appeal is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the FDCP.

Conclusion

55. The parties have relied on the following supporting documentation for this MA under appeal, to which the Court has based its findings, together with the evidence of the experts:

1. amended Modification Application, dated 5 August 2019,

2. amended BASIX certificate, dated 4 August 2019,

3. amended landscape plan, dated 1 August 2019, and

4. amended conditions of consent dated 8 August 2019.

56. I have carefully considered the evidence relevant to the MA under appeal, together with my observations during the onsite view. Based on the information before me in evidence, I am satisfied in my assessment, pursuant to s 4.55(1A) of the EPA Act, that MA 731.2/2011 warrants grant of approval to the use of the unauthorised works referenced in the MA.

Orders

57. Consequently, the orders of the Court are as follows:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Modification Application 731.2/2011 for use of existing, unauthorised works relating to extensions of a two storey dwelling including creating a dining area, additional bedroom and alfresco area on Lot 105 DP 1159914, also known as 23 Cuthbert Crescent, Edensor Park is approved subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

3. The exhibits, except for Exhibits A, C, 3 and 4 are returned.

…………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (165 KB)

Landscape Plan (280 KB)

**********

Decision last updated: 24 September 2019