Nakhle v Woollahra Municipal Council

[2020] NSWLEC 1188

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Nakhle v Woollahra Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 1188
Hearing dates:	Conciliation conference on 3 February 2020
Date of orders:	21 April 2020
Decision date:	21 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 1
Before:	Dixon SC
Decision:	See orders at [48] below
Catchwords:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014
Texts Cited:	Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Paulus Saleem Nakhle (Applicant) Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: S Griffiths (Solicitor) (Applicant) M Harker (Solicitor) (Respondent)   Solicitors: Bartier Perry Lawyers (Applicant) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/173458
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the Council’s refusal of Development Application No. DA2017/440/1 for demolition of an existing residential flat building and construction of a new three-storey residential flat building containing six dwellings and basement parking on land identified as Lot C in Deposited Plan 448601 and known as 12 Kent Road, Rose Bay (site).

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 3 February 2020. I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to them. The decision involves the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the amended development application subject to the conditions in Annexure B.

3. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if that decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In this case, the parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the functions under s 4.16 of the EPA Act. Before this function can be exercised, the Court needs to be satisfied that the adjoining owners at 10 Kent Road consent to the proposed works on the shared driveway; and, that the variation of the floor space ratio (FSR) and height of buildings development standards in the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP) are appropriate in the circumstances of this case under cl 4.6 of the LEP.

Owners’ consent

4. At the commencement of the s34 conciliation held at the site I observed that all vehicular access to the parking area at the rear of the applicant‘s land is via a right-of-way off Kent Road. This right of way is adjacent to the northern side and western (rear) boundaries of 10 Kent Road (2 properties removed to the north) and adjacent to the western (rear) boundary of 10A Kent Road (the adjoining property to the north).

5. The proposal incorporates the installation of traffic lights and convex mirrors on the land outside the site at 10 Kent Road, Rose Bay. The Owners’ Corporation of this adjoining land has provided its written consent to the proposed works in the correspondence dated 7 March 2020 (which has been placed on the Court file) (owner’s consent). The agreement is that the works will be undertaken in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by Mr Ed Lippmann for No. 12 Kent Road DA-115 Rev X, and installed below the top of the nib wall on the street side, without a pole. The correspondence also contains an advisory notation requiring that the stormwater that flows onto the row at the rear of the property at 10 Kent Road from 12 Kent Road must be addressed in this redevelopment.

6. Having considered the terms of the owner’s consent, as outlined, I am satisfied that the development can lawfully be carried out upon the grant of development consent.

Variation of the floor space ratio of buildings development standard in cl 4.4 of the LEP pursuant to cl 4.6

7. Clause 4.4 of the LEP, and the associated map, prescribes a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 (443.82m²) for the site. The proposal exceeds this maximum standard by 39.2% as it has an FSR of 0.9:1 (617.8m²).

8. The applicant seeks to justify its contravention of the maximum FSR standard in this case based on the reasons set out in its written request prepared by aSquare Planning under cl 4.6 of the LEP.

9. The clause invites flexibility in the application of a particular development standard provided that the applicant’s written request can demonstrate:

1. that compliance with the FSR standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case (subcl 4.6(3)(a)); and

2. there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (subcl 4.6(3)(b)).

10. By operation of cl 4.6(4)(a)(i) and (ii), the Court must not grant consent to a development that contravenes the FSR development standard unless it is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required by subcl (3); and, the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and with the standard and that the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

11. In this instance, the applicant’s written request states that compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the development is consistent with the objectives of the standard notwithstanding the breach.

12. The objectives of the FSR standard in cl 4.4 of the LEP are as follows:

(i) to ensure the bulk and scale of new development is compatible with the desired future character of the area, and

(ii) to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain, and

(iii) to ensure that development allows adequate provision on the land for deep soil planting and areas of private open space…

Objective (i) – to ensure the bulk and scale of new development being compatibility with the “desired future character of the area”

13. The desired future character provisions of the Rose Bay Precinct are set out in Part B1.9 of the Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015 (DCP) as follows:

“O1 To respect and enhance the streetscape character and key elements of the precinct.

O2 To encourage development at a scale which relates to the function and role of the streets they address, i.e. larger scale development on the major streets (Old South Head Road and New South Head Road adjacent to the commercial centre) and a range of housing types on the minor streets.

O3 To provide for an evolution of building stock from dwelling houses to medium density development in the R3 zoned areas.

O4 To maintain the evolution of residential building styles through the introduction of well-designed contemporary buildings incorporating modulation and a varied palette of materials.

O5 To reinforce a consistent building scale within streets.

O6 To design and site buildings to respond to the topography and minimise cut and fill.

O7 To protect important iconic and harbour views from the public spaces of the precinct.

O8 To reinforce the landscape setting and maintain the existing tree canopy.”

14. Having considered the proposal in the context of the existing built form against the above objectives, I am satisfied that the development is consistent as it respects and enhances the streetscape character by providing a building of an appropriate scale that is well designed and represents an improvement from the existing in terms of built from and landscaped character.

15. In addition, the site is also located within the Kent Road Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation area and Part B2.11 of the DCP provides the following with respect to desired future character:

• To conserve the streetscape characteristic that gives the Kent Road HCA its special sense of identity.

• To ensure that individual heritage items are retained and conserved, as well as their streetscape context and curtilage.

16. Part B2 sets out the following objectives:

“O1 To conserve the buildings and their settings.

O2 To maintain the streetscape character and scale of buildings.

O3 To ensure that the landscape character of the streetscape is maintained by preserving the existing tree canopy and encouraging additional planting.

O4 To ensure that development respects the existing subdivision layout and pattern of building separation.

O5 To ensure development maintains the amenity of the public domain by preserving views to adjoining open space areas and the enclosed vistas of the streetscape.

O6 To maintain the variety of exterior building materials and ensure conservation of streetscape character.

O7 To ensure that external facades are sympathetic to the original buildings and the predominate streetscape character.

O8 To ensure that significant fences are conserved.

O9 To ensure that new front fences are compatible with the streetscape character of the HCA.

O10 To ensure that onsite parking does not dominate the streetscape.”

17. The applicant’s written request adopts the assessment made in the Demolition Report and Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage filed with the DA. Both reports conclude that (when assessed against the objectives and controls detailed in Part B2.11 Kent Road, Rose Bay DCP) that the proposed new building is of an appropriate scale and form and will be compatible with the existing building for the following reasons:

• The proposed footprint of the building is appropriate to its context. The proposed front, side and rear setbacks will sit comfortably within the established pattern of setbacks along Kent Road.

• The proposed new ridge height is approximately 1m above the existing building. The building lies within the height limit as it presents to Kent Road. The height limit to the rear arises out of the topography of the land and will not be readily visible from the public domain. The rear roof has been hipped to reduce the perception of bulk and scale.

• The form of the building, including the pitch of the roof, will have an acceptable impact on the streetscape. The increase in ridge height is required for the top floor units. The impact is minimal and acceptable because:

1. The eaves height of the existing building is maintained.

2. Ridge heights vary in the immediate area.

3. Hipped and gabled roof forms are typical of the conservation area.

4. A study of pitches of roofs in the immediate area shows a considerable variation. The proposed roof pitch will sit comfortably within the immediate context.

• The front elevation has vertical and horizontal elements, matching the pattern of the existing building and nearby interwar period flat buildings. The proposed porch interprets the front porch of the existing building and provides a focal point for the front elevation.

18. In relation to the objectives of the Kent Road Heritage Conservation Area, the Demolition report and Heritage Impact Statement state that the proposal will:

• have an acceptable impact on the integrity of the conservation area, given that the contribution that the existing building makes to the conservation area has been significantly diminished by later alteration (objective 1);

• maintain the streetscape character and scale of buildings because the proposed building demonstrates an appropriate form scale setback and material finishes (objective 2);

• maintain the landscape character of the area by providing inappropriate landscape scheme which will contribute to the area as it matures by maintaining the existing street trees outside of the site (objective 3);

• respects the subdivision pattern and pattern of building separation (objective 4);

• have no impact on significant view corridors or impact on the enclosed vistas of the streetscape (objective 5);

• proposes the use of appropriate exterior building materials and finishes (objectives 6 and 7);

• not result in the removal of a significant fence (objective 8); and

• provides a new fence that is compatible with the streetscape (objective 9).

19. The uppermost level is incorporated within a pitch reform and was designed in close consultation with Council’s Urban Design and Heritage Officers. This design effectively mitigates visual impacts upon the locality associated with level two. The side elevations and roof were extended 2m forward to envelop the front terraces/balconies to the satisfaction of the Council’s Heritage Officer.

20. The written request states that further support for the variation of the FSR control is found in the Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Officers assessment report which describes the height, scale and form of the development as being satisfactory in terms of its visual impacts upon the Kent Road streetscape and as achieving consistency with the desired future character of the neighbourhood.

21. In short, the written request records that the heritage evidence is that the building satisfies the objectives of Parts B1.9 and B2.11 of the DCP as it:

• respects and enhances the streetscape character and key elements of the precinct (O1);

• provides for a range of housing types within the Medium Density R3 Zone (O2);

• provides for an evolution of building stock within the Medium Density R3 zone (O3);

• provides for the evolution of residential building styles through the introduction of a well-designed contemporary building which respects traditional building forms (O4);

• provides a consistent building scale within Kent Road (O5);

• minimises cut and fill (O6);

• has no view impacts (O7); and

• improves the landscape setting by removing above ground parking in the backyard and providing 183m² of new communal open space and 228m² of new deep soil landscaping. Existing trees are retained along the rear boundary, for new trees are provided in the rear and five new trees in the front yard (O8).

22. The written request states that for the reasons outlined the proposal is in harmony with other developments in the street and as such satisfies the DCP’s desired future character provisions for the area (Part B1.9 of the DCP) and the objectives of the Kent Road Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Area (Part B2.11 of the DCP). I accept that reasoning.

Objective (ii) – to minimise adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain

23. The written request states that the proposal will have minimal adverse environmental effects on the use or enjoyment of adjoining properties and the public domain. In that regard, it states that the proposal maintains solar access to adjoining property at 14 Kent Road in accordance with the DCP; and will not overshadow any other properties. It will not adversely impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties or the public domain in terms of loss of views or visual impacts. Any perceived privacy impacts upon the adjoining properties to the north (10A Kent Road) it is submitted can be mitigated by the agreed conditions. Noting, Council’s assessment report states: “… it is considered that this issue is not directly related to the floor space ratio non-compliance but rather is associated with the ADG separation requirements (6m side setback requirement (and a lack of acoustic and visual privacy screening measures).”

24. In relation to traffic and parking, the amended proposal demonstrates that there will now be no net increase in car parking spaces (6 spaces) compared to the existing informal parking arrangements on the site. This arrangement will be formalised with parking being provided under the building as opposed to within the rear setback as at present.

25. The existing shared driveway will be upgraded and improved in accordance with Council’s requirements and to satisfy the request of the neighbours. Notably, there will be no net increase in traffic movements within the shared driveway as identified in the Traffic report prepared by Traffix dated November 2019. In fact, the use and enjoyment of the shared driveway by adjoining neighbours will be enhanced by the proposal as the existing driveway conditions will be improved from safety and accessibility perspectives. Noting the traffic expert evidence is that the amended proposal provides an appropriate parking provision given the scale and nature of the development and its proximity to bus stops along the New South Head Road and Rose Bay ferry wharf.

26. Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the written request has adequately demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with this objective of the standard.

Objective (iii) – to ensure that development allows adequate provision on the land for deep soil planting and areas of private open space

27. Lastly, I am satisfied for the reasons outlined in the written request that the development will achieve Objective (iii) of the standard in that it will allow adequate provision on the land for deep soil planting and areas of private open space in accordance with Part 3.7.1 of the DCP by providing 189m² of Deep Soil Landscaped Area Overall. The proposal also provides 183m² of communal open space which is equivalent to 26.8% of the site.

Clause 4.6(3)(b) – there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

28. In my assessment, the written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravening of the FSR standard in this case because:

• The proposal achieves the Desired Future Character Objectives for the reasons summarised above notwithstanding the breach;

• The proposal generally reflects the bulk, scale, and form of existing residential flat building within the site and so maintains a consistency of streetscape;

• The uppermost level is incorporated within the pitched roof form and has been designed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Heritage Officer and this design effectively mitigates visual impacts upon the locality associated with level 2; and

• The proposal will provide improved safety and accessibility conditions within the shared driveway as a result of the driveway upgrade works, benefiting the owner of both 10 and 10A Kent Road.

29. Given the consistency of the proposal with the objectives in the standard, I am satisfied that the development will promote the orderly and economic use and development of the land, as it promotes good design and amenity in the built environment and protects the heritage item built environments which are identified as objects of the EPA Act under s 1.3. Accordingly, it follows that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the standard. The written request has adequately addressed the matters in cl 4.6(3) as required by cl 4.6(4)(a).

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i) of the LEP

30. I am also satisfied for the reasons articulated in the written request that the development is consistent with all relevant objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the LEP because it will provide for:

1. the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. In particular, a high quality urban design outcome with improved underground parking and landscaping and complaint front and rear and side setbacks;

2. each of the proposed apartments would achieve a high standard of internal and external amenity with improved compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) as follows:

1. each of the proposed apartments include an east or west facing terrace;

2. each of the units will receive more than three hours of sunlight in midwinter and will be naturally crossed ventilated;

1. 183m² of communal open space and deep so variable provided, which is equivalent to 26.8% of the site area; and

2. 228m² of deep soil will be provided, which is equivalent to 33.5% of the site area;

3. a variety of housing types within the medium density residential environment. The proposal has 3 x 2 bedroom apartments and 3 x 3 bedroom apartments, which is considered appropriate for, and adds some variety in housing choice to the locality; and

4. is of a height and scale that achieves the desired future character of the neighbourhood (for the reasons outlined earlier).

31. Having identified that the development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, it follows that the development is in the public interest in accordance with cl 4.6(4)(a)(i).

Variation of the 10.5m maximum Height of Buildings standard in cl 4.3 of the LEP pursuant to cl 4.6

32. The proposed height of the building is between 9.5m and 12.5m, and this represents a 19% departure from the standard. To address this non-compliance, the applicant has lodged a separate cl 4.6 written request prepared by aSquare Planning to support a variation of the standard in cl 4.3.

33. The objectives of the height of buildings standard are as follows:

(a) to establish building heights at a consistent with the desired future character of the neighbourhood,

(b) to establish a transition in scale between zones to protect local amenity,

(c) to minimise the loss of solar access to existing buildings and open space,

(d) to minimise the impacts of new development adjoining or nearby properties from disruption of use, loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion.

(e) to protect the amenity of the public domain by providing public views of the harbour and surrounding areas.

34. The applicant’s written request seeks to justify the variation on the basis that it is unreasonable or unnecessary this case to require compliance with the standard because the development is, in any event, consistent with the objectives of the development standard.

Objective (a) – to establish building heights at a consistent with the desired future character of the neighbourhood

35. The written request states that the proposed bulk and scale of the residential flat building is compatible with the size and shape of the allotment. The height and scale of the proposed development relates to the topography of the site on the street character which I observed at the site view.

36. I accept the proposal has been designed having regard to the existing built form on the site and the desired future character of the neighbourhood which I have outlined earlier. It will not be materially different to the existing residential flat building on the site in terms of bulk and scale. And for the reasons earlier explained, in relation to a breach of the height standard, I am satisfied that the proposed new building will improve the existing situation on the site by providing underground on-site parking, an increased landscaped area and a compliant front rear and side setback and improve compliance with SEPP 65.

37. For those reasons, I believe that the development is consistent with objective (a) of the standard.

Objective (b) – to establish a transition in scale between zones to protect local amenity

38. The written request states that the proposal is responsive to the character and context of the area in that it provides for a higher quality urban design outcome on this site. The siting, bulk and scale of the building is compatible with the neighbouring nearby residential developments in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the proposal does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring nearby properties in terms of overshadowing privacy and view loss.

39. Based on my observations of the site and a consideration of the plans including shadow diagrams, I am satisfied that the development is consistent with objective (b) of the standard.

Objective (d) – to minimise the impacts of new development adjoining or nearby properties from disruption of use, loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion

40. The written request relies upon the Lippmann Partnership shadow diagrams to support a proposition that the proposal maintains solar access to surrounding properties is not considered to be responsible for any unreasonable view or privacy impacts. I accept that to be the fact based on my understanding of the plans and the topography of the area as observed at the site view.

Objective (e) – to protect the amenity of the public domain by providing public views of the harbour and surrounding areas

41. It is accepted that the proposal is not considered to be responsible for any unreasonable view impacts to the harbour and surrounding areas and that the amenity of the public domain is protected in that regard.

42. The written request accurately describes the site as surrounded by a mix of residential, educational and recreational buildings and a mix of residential developments including three storey residential flat buildings, large single storey houses and two storey detached dwellings. Adjoining the site to the north is a two storey dwelling at 10A Kent Road. On the south is a single storey building at 14 Kent Road Junior School, which is zoned for Educational Establishment as part of the Cranbrook Junior School.

43. The written request records the development has been sited and designed to maximise solar access to the proposed apartments and minimise the impacts on neighbouring properties. The shadow analysis prepared by Lippmann Partnership indicates this, and I am satisfied the written request has demonstrated that the overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring buildings are acceptable with regard to the objectives and controls in B3.52 of Chapter 3 in the DCP. As the request points out, the height and scale of the proposal relates to the topography of the site and the street character and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss. The development standard for height covers a wide area and a variation in this case where the objectives of the standard are still achieved suggests that compliance numerically is unreasonable or unnecessary in this case.

44. The written request makes plain the fact that the proposal will ensure that the existing character of the area is retained because the envelope, bulk and scale of the building are compatible with development in the vicinity. For the reasons outlined earlier (which are repeated in the separate cl 4.6 written request in relation to height), I accept that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

45. The written request states that that the proposed new ridge height is approximately 1m above the existing building and that the building lies within the existing height limit as it presents to Kent Road. The breach of the height limit to the rear arises from the topography of the site in order to accommodate the top floor units. That said, it will not be readily visible from the public domain. In that regard, the rear roof has been hipped to reduce the perception of bulk and scale. The form of the building, including the pitch of the roof, will have an acceptable impact on the streetscape. The impact is described as minimal and acceptable, and I agree. A study of the pitches in the immediate area shows a considerable variation and the proposed roof pitch will as the written request records “sit comfortably within the immediate context”.

46. For those reasons, I am satisfied that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the contravention of the standard in this case. As the development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the R3 zone and there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the breach of the standard, I accept that the development is in the public interest despite the breach of the height.

Clause 4.6(4)(b) – for both FSR and Height

47. For the reasons outlined, I am satisfied that the development is generally consistent with State and local planning policies and guidelines and the non-compliance with the FSR and height of buildings development standards, in this instance, does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Therefore, I find that there is no public benefit gained from maintaining the standards in this case. As I am of the opinion that the matters in cl 4.6(4)(a) are satisfied and in absence of the concurrence of the Secretary under cl 4.6(4)(b), by reason of s 39(6) of the LEC Act, I approve of the variations of the FSR and height of buildings standards in the LEP and as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I will now dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

48. The Court orders that:

1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA440/2017 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are included at Annexure “A”:

Plan Reference	Prepared by	Date
Drawing No. DA-102 – Site and Roof Plan, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-103 – Level B1 and Ground Floor Plan, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-104 – Level 1 and 2 Floor Plans, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-105 – Section 1 and 2, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-106 – Section 3, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-107 – Elevation North and South, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-108 – Elevation East and West, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Drawing No. DA-115 – Traffic Management Plan, Revision X	Lippmann Partnership	04/02/20
Project No. P1706085, Rev G - Stormwater Management Plan	Martens & Associates	20/11/18
Document Reference	Prepared by	Date
BASIX Certificate No. 845057M_02	Six B Design	20 February 2020
Letter of consent on behalf of owners of 10 Kent Road, Rose Bay	Owners Corporation 10 Kent Road, Rose Bay	7 March 2020
Clause 4.6 variation to vary floor space ratio	aSquare Planning	17 February 2020
Structural Report – Absorption System	Alba & Associates Consulting Engineers	23/11/2018
P1706085JR02V02-Rev 2 - Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Assessment	Martens Consulting Engineers	06/09/2017

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s cost pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the full and final agreed sum of $6,000.00.

3. The applicant’s request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (in relation to the height of buildings development standard at clause 4.3 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014), prepared by aSquare Planning at Appendix 2 of the Statement of Environmental Effects dated September 2017, is upheld.

4. The applicant’s request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (in relation to the floor space ratio development standard at clause 4.4 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014), prepared by aSquare Planning and dated 17 February 2020, is upheld.

5. The appeal is upheld.

6. Development Application No. DA440/2017 (as amended) for demolition of the existing residential flat building and construction of a new three-storey residential flat building containing six dwellings and basement parking on land identified as Lot C in Deposited Plan 448601 and known as 12 Kent Road, Rose Bay, is approved subject to the conditions included at Annexure “B”.

………………………

S Dixon

Senior Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (Architectural and Stormwater Plans) (10.2 MB, pdf)

Annexure A (BASIX) (134 KB, pdf)

Annexure A (Owners Consent) (41.3 KB, pdf)

Annexure A (Clause 4.6 Request) (184 KB, pdf)

Annexure A (Structural Report) (63.7 KB, pdf)

Annexure A (Geotech Report) (2.61 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (479 KB, pdf)

**********

Amendments

22 April 2020 - Correction to typographical errors in headings

Decision last updated: 22 April 2020