Watkinson v Inner West Council

[2024] NSWLEC 1679

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Watkinson v Inner West Council [2024] NSWLEC 1679

Hearing dates:

20 and 21 August 2024

Date of orders:

25 October 2024

Decision date:

25 October 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Targett C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application DA/2023/0424, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing studio, use of the studio as a dwelling and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two lots at 4 Turner Street, Balmain, is granted development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

(3) The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits A, B, M, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Residential – Development application – s34AA – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.10, 8.14

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34AA

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 27

Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 1.2, 4.6, 5.10, 6.1, 6.3

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6

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

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Linda Claire Watkinson (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Griffiths (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Marsland (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Applicant)
Apex Planning and Environment Law (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/49173

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

COMMISSIONER:

Introduction

1. This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the applicant against the respondent’s refusal of the applicant’s development application (DA/2023/0424) (Development Application). The Development Application sought consent for alterations and additions to an existing studio, use of the studio as a dwelling, and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two lots on land identified as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 724179, known as 4 Turner Street, Balmain (Subject Land).

2. The appeal was subject to conciliation on 20 August 2024, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). As agreement was not reached, the conciliation conference was terminated and a hearing held forthwith, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b)(ii) of the LEC Act.

3. The Court inspected the Subject Land and surrounding area with the parties by walking the length of Turner Street as well as parts of Cardwell Street, King Street, King Lane and Birchgrove Road (from which we also viewed part of Punch Road).

4. The Court has power to dispose of these proceedings under its Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(d) of the LEC Act. The proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 8.14 of the EPA Act, having regard to the matters required to be considered in s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

Background

5. The Subject Land (and, therefore, Proposed Lots 1 and 2) is owned by the applicant and Mr Owen Watkinson. Both provided their owners consent to the Development Application as lodged (Ex B, tab 2).

6. The Subject Land is irregular in shape with a total area of 850.3m² and a frontage of 12.29m to Turner Street (Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply filed 16 July 2024 (SOFAC Reply) at par 2.3 (Ex C)).

7. The Subject Land adjoins a 3.05m wide Council owned drainage reserve to the rear (Drainage Reserve) which is legally described as Lot 40 in Deposited Plan 3757. The Subject Land has a rear boundary of 18.38m. The Drainage Reserve is burdened by a right of way benefiting multiple properties including the Subject Land (Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 23 February 2024 (SOFAC) (Ex 1)) at pars 5 and 6). It was not disputed that the right of way appears and serves as a lane, providing pedestrian and vehicular access to the rear of multiple properties in Turner Street, Cardwell Street and Birchgrove Road (SOFAC Reply (Ex C)).

8. The existing dwelling house was constructed at the front of the Subject Land in the mid 1870s. The dwelling house was extended with a two storey rear addition in 2015. An engineering factory was constructed in 1940 at the rear of the Subject Land and was occupied by a mechanical engineering business. The factory was decommissioned in the 1960s. The Drainage Reserve was used to access the rear of the Subject Land for both the residential and factory use.

9. Relevantly to this matter, development consent to development application number D/2007/161 was granted in respect of the Subject Land on 31 May 2007 authorising “first floor addition and new ground floor bathroom to an existing outbuilding to the rear of the site” (Ex 8) (2007 Consent). The “existing outbuilding” can be accepted to be a reference to the previous factory building and the parties intermittently referred to this structure in the hearing as the “outbuilding” or “studio”. This judgment will refer to this structure as the “Studio”.

10. The Subject Land currently accommodates a two-storey detached dwelling, pool, detached garage (accessed via the Drainage Reserve), detached washroom, and the Studio.

11. The Subject Land is zoned R1 General Residential under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (IWLEP) and located within the Iron Cove Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) under the IWLEP.

12. The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 5 June 2023.

13. The Development Application relevantly sought consent for:

1. Torrens title subdivision from one lot into two lots comprising:

1. Proposed Lot 1: 12.29m frontage to Turner Street and 3.745m rear boundary to the Drainage Reserve and total site area of 636.3m².

2. Proposed Lot 2: 14.635m frontage to the Drainage Reserve and total site area of 214m².

2. Change of use of the Studio located on Proposed Lot 2 to a dwelling house.

3. Removal of the rear carport structure.

4. Replacement of the existing timber sliding barn doors (at the side of the Studio structure) with an inset planter box, low exterior wall and glass windows.

5. Replacement of the existing roller door, that directly accesses the Drainage Reserve from the Studio, with a hinged front door.

6. Extension to the laundry/bathroom attached to/contained within the existing Studio.

7. Internal reconfiguration works to the Studio.

8. Materials and finishes to the Studio including:

1. white window frames to match existing,

2. clear glass to doors, windows and glass balustrade,

3. existing brickwork to remain untouched, and

4. galvanised rainwater head and downpipe.

14. The Development Application was notified from 15 to 29 June 2023. One submission was received raising concerns relating to fire safety, noise and heritage impacts.

15. On 15 September 2023, the Development Application was refused.

16. On 8 February 2024, the proceedings were commenced, being within the appeal period prescribed by s 8.10 of the EPA Act.

17. On 23 February 2024, the respondent filed its SOFAC.

18. On 16 July 2024, the applicant filed its SOFAC Reply.

19. At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant sought, and was granted, leave to amend the Development Application (Amended Development Application) by relying on amended plans contained in Ex A. The amendments primarily related to:

1. providing pedestrian access from Turner Street to Proposed Lot 2 via a right of footway burdening Proposed Lot 1. The proposed right of footway would be located largely along an existing pathway running from Turner Street to the rear of the existing dwelling, and involve associated works including:

1. construction of a fence;

2. erection of a letter box and street numbering servicing Proposed Lot 2 at the front of Proposed Lot 1 on Turner Street;

3. the erection of wayfinding signage; and

4. demolition of the existing washhouse located on Proposed Lot 1 to facilitate the right of footway from Turner Street to Proposed Lot 2;

2. rationalising the proposed boundary between Proposed Lots 1 and 2, resulting in the area of Proposed Lot 1 being 632.49m² and the area of Proposed Lot 2 being 217.83m²;

3. depicting the construction of a new kitchen in the proposed dwelling (existing Studio structure) on Proposed Lot 2; and

4. depicting a splay over Proposed Lot 2 to accommodate the swept path analysis for vehicular access to Proposed Lot 1 from the Drainage Reserve.

20. The plans depicting the proposed right of footway are extracted below:

Issues

21. The issues remaining in dispute at the hearing can be distilled as follows:

1. Whether the subdivision proposed by the Amended Development Application is consistent with and achieves the controls and objectives for subdivision under Part C1.6 of the Leichhardt Development Control Plan 2013 (LDCP).

2. Whether the Subject Land is suitable for an additional dwelling house on Proposed Lot 2.

3. Whether there are adequate arrangements for services to the existing and proposed lots.

4. If the Amended Development Application is granted development consent, what conditions should be imposed.

22. For the reasons that follow, I have determined to grant consent to the Amended Development Application subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

Expert evidence

23. The applicant relied on the expert evidence of Mr Philip North (town planning), and Mr Kamyar Eivazzadeh (traffic and civil engineering/stormwater).

24. The respondent relied on the expert evidence of Mr Eltin Miletic (town planning) and Mr Joseph Bazergy (traffic and civil engineering/stormwater).

25. The following joint reports were filed and subsequently tendered at the hearing:

1. Joint Expert Report by Planners prepared by Mr North and Mr Miletic filed 16 August 2024 (Ex 3) (Joint Town Planning Report).

2. Joint Expert Report by Civil/Stormwater Engineers prepared by Mr Eivazzadeh and Mr Bazergy filed 16 August 2024 (Ex 4) (Joint Engineering Report).

3. Joint Expert Report by Traffic Engineers prepared by Mr Eivazzadeh and Mr Bazergy, filed 16 August 2024 (Ex 5) (Joint Traffic Report).

Legislative and planning framework

26. Pursuant to s 4.6(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP), a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless –

1. it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

2. 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

3. 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.

27. The parties agree that s 4.6 of the RH SEPP has been appropriately addressed by the Amended Development Application.

28. In determining the Amended Development Application, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 4.6(1) of the RH SEPP and am satisfied that the Subject Land is suitable for the proposed development having regard to the Contamination Report prepared by Mr Richard Denham dated 17 May 2023 (Ex B, tab 6) and the fact that the 2007 Consent also considered contamination with no material changes to the use of the Subject Land since that time which might alter that analysis or satisfaction.

29. The Amended Development Application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate pursuant to s 27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (Ex B, tab 5).

30. The Subject Land is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment for the purposes of (now) Ch 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (BC SEPP). The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is consistent with the requirements for developments within the Sydney Harbour Catchment and will not result in any impact on such catchments (Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) (Ex B, tab 14) at par 4.1.2).

31. As set out above, the Subject Land is zoned R1 General Residential under the IWLEP. Dwelling houses are permitted with consent in the R1 zone. The aims of IWLEP set out in cl 1.2(2) are as follows:

(2)  The particular aims of this Plan are as follows—

(aa)  to protect and promote the use and development of land for arts and cultural activity, including music and other performance arts,

(a)  to encourage development that demonstrates efficient and sustainable use of energy and resources in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles,

(b)  to conserve and maintain the natural, built and cultural heritage of Inner West,

(c)  to reduce community risk from and improve resilience to urban and natural hazards,

(d)  to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport through appropriate intensification of development densities surrounding transport nodes,

(e)  to facilitate economic growth and employment opportunities within Inner West,

(f)  to encourage diversity in housing to meet the needs of, and enhance amenity for, Inner West residents,

(g)  to create a high quality urban place through the application of design excellence in all elements of the built environment and public domain,

(h)  to prevent adverse social, economic and environmental impacts on the local character of Inner West,

(i)  to prevent adverse social, economic and environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts.

32. The objectives of the R1 zone to which I have had regard are extracted below:

•  To provide for the housing needs of the community.

•  To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

•  To provide residential development that maintains the character of built and natural features in the surrounding area.

33. It was agreed, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is compliant with all development standards in the IWLEP, including, height, floor space ratio, minimum lot size and landscaping.

34. Further, the parties agree that the Amended Development Application is acceptable from a heritage perspective for the purpose of cl 5.10(4) of the IWLEP. In determining the Amended Development Application, I confirm that I have considered the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the HCA for the purposes of cl 5.10(4) of the IWLEP and am satisfied that it is acceptable from a heritage perspective, having regard to the “Heritage Impact Statement for Minor Alterations and Additions to Former Engineering Factory and Subdivision of Land” report prepared by Oikos Architects dated 12 May 2023 (Heritage Report) (Ex B, tab 8).

35. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Subject Land is Class 5 land for the purposes of cl 6.1 of the IWLEP relating to acid sulfate soils and unlikely to lower the water table, such that the provisions of cl 6.1 of the IWLEP are not enlivened.

36. In relation to cl 6.3 of the IWLEP relating to stormwater management, the parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application satisfies the provisions of cl 6.3(3), having regard to section 4.6.3 of the SEE.

37. As set out at [21], the issues in dispute in this case primarily relate to the application and scope of relevant provisions of the LDCP.

38. Part C1.6 of the LDCP outlines objectives and controls for the subdivision of any parcel of land (except Strata subdivision). Relevant provisions of Part C1.6 are extracted below:

“Objectives

O1 Development:

a. creates lots of sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate residential development that is consistent with the controls in this Development Control Plan;

b. creates lots that are consistent with the surrounding prevailing subdivision pattern and where possible, new street networks should have an east-west orientation;

c. incorporates significant natural landscape features;

d. facilitates safe, convenient and comfortable movement, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists;

e. creates high quality public open space where relevant;

f. provides a high level of safety and security;

g. is provided with appropriate infrastructure, and where appropriate, ecologically sustainable infrastructure;

h. enables lots to achieve a high level of energy efficiency.

Controls

Minimum lot size

C1. Except for strata subdivision of buildings, the minimum lot size for dwellings is 200sqm.

Subdivision pattern

C2. New allotments shall be consistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the neighbourhood.

…

Safety and security

C6. Lots are oriented to address streets and public open space.

Urban infrastructure

C7. Urban infrastructure such as water, sewerage and drainage is provided.

C8. Urban infrastructure that delivers ecologically sustainable outcomes is encouraged.

C9. Each new allotment must be provided with a boundary to a public road.”

39. Part C1.7 of the LDCP outlines objectives and controls for site facilities and is extracted below:

“Objectives

O1 Site facilities are provided that:

a. are functional;

b. are integrated into the layout and design of the development;

c. do not cause an adverse amenity impact;

d. are adequate given the size of the dwelling or building;

e. can be easily maintained.

Controls

General

C1 Rubbish storage and collection areas are to be shaded and be designed and located to have minimal impacts and visibility from the street. They shall not be located next to openings such as doors and windows to habitable rooms. They should be located to minimise the transfer of waste through residential dwellings.

C2 Development shall be consistent with Part D Section 2 – Resource Recovery and Waste Management within this Development Control Plan.

C3 Mailboxes of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate large envelopes and newspapers are provided in a location that is readily visible from the street and allow for convenient and safe access.

C4 Air-conditioning units are not visible from the street.   

Residential Development

C5 The minimum area of internal storage space for each dwelling is 6 cubic metres.

Note: A smaller area may be considered by Council for smaller dwellings such as secondary dwellings, studios and one bedroom units.

C6 A useable area of multipurpose storage space suitable for large goods, such as bicycles and the like is provided with minimal visibility from the street.

C7 Single residential and semi-detached houses are to be provided with an uncovered area of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate clothes drying.

C8 External clothes drying areas should not be visible from the street

C9 Each dwelling is provided with laundry facilities.

Non Residential Development

C10 Where drinking water fountains are provided, ensure they are accessible.”

40. Part C1.9 of the LDCP outlines objectives and controls for safety by design and is relevantly extracted below:

“Objectives

O1 To support the provisions of the Inner West LEP 2022 with respect to community safety.

O2 To encourage safe and secure environments for occupants and visitors.

O3 To minimise opportunities for criminal and anti-social behaviour within the public domain.

O4 To encourage the application of Crime Prevention through Design (CPTED) principles in development to:

a. reduce opportunities for crime;

b. promote a physically and socially safe community;

c. reduce the opportunity for crimes to be committed;

d. maximise the potential for passive surveillance by designing adequate sight lines into public spaces;

e. consider community safety at the early stages of the design process to avoid retrofitting or renovation of infrastructure; PART C – 45

f. create spaces which are well lit, well utilised and feel safe; and

g. attract the community to public spaces

Controls

C1 All development applications must demonstrate an understanding of the potential crime risk of the proposed development and apply CPTED treatments (i.e. Territorial re-enforcement, surveillance, access control and space/activity management) that correspond with the proposed levels of risk associated with the development.

Development shall demonstrate regard to the:

a. surveillance of the site, and ensure:

i. main building frontages shall be orientated towards the street;

ii. “blind spots” are to be avoided;

iii. ground floors of non-residential buildings, the non-residential component of mixeduse developments, and the foyer areas of residential buildings, are designed to enable surveillance from the public domain to the inside of the building at night;

iv. buildings are designed to provide surveillance of paths and laneways which are not located along a primary street frontage;

v. entrances are visible to and from the street;

vi. window and door openings that have frontage to the street or are adjacent to public open spaces use external window coverings made from non-solid, permeable materials;

vii. security grilles and security doors are used and materials permit casual surveillance;

viii. appropriate lighting is included within the design;

ix. landscaping does not provide concealment opportunities, but maximises sight lines; and

x. public facilities (e.g. automatic teller machines (ATM’s), public telephones and bicycle racks) are located in high pedestrian traffic areas and incorporate security features in their design.

b. legibility of the site, and ensure:

i. spaces are designed with regard to man-made or natural landmarks;

ii. signage and ‘way finding’ is legible, appropriately located, includes relevant directional information or assistance numbers and utilises internationally recognised symbology where necessary;

iii. building entries are clearly visible, unobstructed and easily identifiable from the main street frontage, other public areas and other development; where practicable, lift lobbies, stairwells and hallways should be visible from the public domain; PART C – 46

iv. dwelling units have individual main entries directly from a public space or communal area, and the entry is to include a clearly defined transitional space between public and private areas;

v. street numbers are clearly displayed at the front of the development or on the front fence of the development;

vi. internal numbers for multiple occupancy developments are clearly displayed on each individual dwelling; and

vii. each building entry must clearly state the unit numbers accessed from that entry.

c. territoriality of the site, and ensure:

i. boundaries of private and public spaces are clearly defined through measures such as permeable fencing, change in paving materials, public art, directional signage, good maintenance and landscaping, before formal measures such as do-not-enter signs, walls and security guards are considered.

d. vandalism management of the site, and ensure:

i. potential opportunities for crime are reduced by using sturdy materials and fittings in the design to minimise potential for undue maintenance without detracting from the amenity of the development;

ii. systems for reporting and repair of safety risks or damaged and worn physical aspects of spaces and places are implemented;

iii. graffiti vandalism is reduced through measures such as:

o avoiding “blank canvasses” – utilising design aspects such as non-continuous fencing, rough render on walls, or mural or mosaic finishes;

o utilising “green screens” – planting fast-growing, long lasting and low maintenance vines and shrubs to limit access to vulnerable walls;

o prompt clean-up of new graffiti;

o use of protective coatings and “graffiti resistant” design materials; and

o ensuring areas vulnerable to graffiti are well-lit to promote natural surveillance.

e. reducing vulnerability of the site, and ensure:

i. pathways are straight where practicable and blind corners avoided (including on stairs, in hallways or in other situations where movement can be predicted. If blind corners cannot be avoided in the development, then they are to be designed to the satisfaction of Council; and

ii. external lighting is provided at the main pedestrian and bicycle entranceway to a building and all communal areas.

C2 …

41. Part C1.18 of the LDCP outlines objectives and controls for laneways and is extracted below:

“Objectives

O1 Development

a. respects the existing and desired future use, form and character of the laneway consistent with the laneway hierarchy as shown in Table C11 Laneway hierarchy;

b. achieves an appropriate level of amenity, access, security and landscaping; and

c. enhances the permeability of the neighbourhood by providing direct, safe and attractive pathways for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

Controls

C1 If development is adjacent to a Pedestrian or Service Lane (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) which has a width of less than 2.5m or is a Narrow Lane (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) which has a width of 2.5 – 5m:

a. additional lane fronting dwellings are not permitted; and

b. the service function and character of the lane is to be protected and enhanced.

C2 If development is adjacent to a Medium Lane (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) which has a width of 5.1 – 8m:

a. additional lane fronting dwellings may be provided where other lane fronting dwellings are located within 15m of the boundaries of the proposed dwelling, and if safe pedestrian access can be provided; and

b. the service function and character of the lane is to be protected and enhanced.

C3 If development is adjacent to a Wide Lane (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy), which has a width of 8.1m or greater, an additional dwelling fronting the laneway may be permitted.

Urban form

C4 Buildings adjacent to a laneway have a simple form and minimal façade detailing.

C5 Where fronting a Narrow Lane, (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) development shall comply with a laneway envelope that has:

a. a maximum side wall height of 3m;

b. a 450 building envelope taken from the top of the side wall; and

c. a maximum roof height of 5m (refer to Figure C14 Laneway envelope for development fronting a Narrow Lane).

C6 Where fronting a Medium Lane, (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) development shall comply with a laneway envelope that has:

a. a maximum side wall height of 3.6m;

b. a 450 building envelope taken from the top of the side wall; and

c. a maximum roof height of 6m

C7 Where fronting a Wide Lane, (refer to Table C11 Laneway hierarchy) development shall comply with a laneway envelope that has:

a. height that is consistent with the prevailing height of existing development fronting the lane.

C8 Development is not visible from the primary street frontage.

C9 The bulk and scale of development does not significantly diminish the dominance of the primary building on the same lot.

C10 Buildings are generally built to the laneway alignment.

C11 Dwellings provide an active interface with the laneway.

C12 External walls are constructed in high quality materials and finishes which are compatible with fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood.

C13 Roof forms are either hipped roofs, gabled roofs pitched from the sides or skillion roofs located behind parapets where such development meets the laneway control envelope.

C14 Roofs materials are corrugated iron, slate or terracotta tile.

C15 Roof openings are flush to the roof.

Access / Parking

C16 Development does not result in increased laneway parking or remove on street parking.

Note: Swept path assessment is to be used to demonstrate that any on street parking has been retained and sufficient building offset has been provided to allow this manoeuvring.

C17 Sufficient on-site parking and manoeuvring space is provided without compromising the prevailing character, building form and setback of the laneway.

C18 The development is consistent with the provisions of Part C1.11 – Parking within this Development Control Plan

Pedestrian/Bicycle Access

C19 Where an additional lane fronting a dwelling is provided, a separate pedestrian door is provided directly from the lane and safe pedestrian and bicycle access is provided along the laneway on a footpath or kerb to a road or along a 10km/h shared zone if provided.

Security

C20 Entrances to dwellings are provided with overhead lighting within property boundaries.

C21 Windows from habitable rooms directly overlook the lane to enhance casual surveillance opportunities.

C22 The development is consistent with the provisions of Part C1.9 – Safety By Design within this Development Control Plan

Landscaping

C23 Trees more than 6m in height, natural rock outcrops and rock cuttings that make a significant contribution to the character of the laneway are retained.

”

Is the proposed subdivision compliant with the objectives and controls in Part C1.6 of the LDCP?

Respondent’s submissions

42. The respondent submits that the Torrens title subdivision proposed by the Amended Development Application is not consistent with the objectives or controls set out in Part C1.6 of the LDCP and should subsequently be refused. The respondent submits that the Amended Development Application does not have an appropriate frontage to a public road, does not provide a high level of safety or security and does not facilitate safe, convenient and comfortable movement, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. It is noted that the respondent’s initial contention that the Amended Development Application deviated from the prevailing subdivision pattern was not pressed at the hearing.

43. The respondent relies on the evidence of Mr Miletic that:

1. Proposed Lot 1 is an irregular hatchet shaped lot with a total area of 636.3m². It maintains the existing 12.29m wide primary street frontage to Turner Street and variable overall width and length. A 3.745m wide rear access handle of 7.135m is proposed to the existing rear garage off the existing shared right of way over the adjacent Council Drainage Reserve (Joint Town Planning Report at par 13).

2. Proposed Lot 2 is irregular in shape with a total area of 214m² and variable overall width and length. It does not have any direct frontage to a public road. It maintains a 14.635m wide north-western boundary to the adjoining Council Drainage Reserve and is solely reliant upon a shared 3.05m and variable width shared right of way of 44.97m (excluding the 16.6m frontage of Proposed Lot 2) in length for access via Cardwell Street (Joint Town Planning Report at par 14).

3. There are limited examples of irregular lots in the existing subdivision pattern of the immediately surrounding area, but there are no other lots in the existing subdivision pattern without a direct frontage to a public road. Further, there are no examples of existing lots fronting a Drainage Reserve with a right of footway to a public road. Neither Option A [1]  or B showing a right of footway to Turner Street for Proposed Lot 2 would provide any consistency with the prevailing subdivision pattern nor ameliorate the deficiencies of allowing Proposed Lot 2 and the change of use of the Studio for a new dwelling house to have a primary frontage to a Council Drainage Reserve (Joint Town Planning Report at par 15).

   1. It is noted that the applicant largely adopts “Option A” from the Joint Town Planning Report in the Amended Development Application – see Ex A.

44. By way of oral evidence addressing the Amended Development Application and the proposed street frontage from Proposed Lot 2 to Turner Street via a right of footway burdening Proposed Lot 1, Mr Miletic was of the view that:

1. The proposed right of footway over Proposed Lot 1:

1. was insufficient to meet the objectives of Part C1.6 of the LDCP and should be a dedicated access handle forming part of Proposed Lot 2 and in the ownership of Proposed Lot 2 so as to provide a boundary to a public road (Turner Street);

2. relies upon a way finding solution which is not appropriate in the circumstances;

3. is not well defined and may cause confusion and the opportunity for crime in contravention of the relevant Crime Prevention through Design (CPTED) principles due to it not being clear who owns which lot; and

4. is too narrow for pedestrians and cyclists and should be widened and realigned at the “pinch point” to provide a direct line of sight from Turner Street through to Proposed Lot 2. This would necessarily involve demolishing part of the utility room of the existing dwelling on the Subject Land (Proposed Lot 1). Mr Miletic agreed during cross examination that the widening of the existing path would also involve the partial demolition of the bedroom located above the utility room.

2. The front entrance to Proposed Lot 2 will still present as the Drainage Reserve rather than Turner Street, which does not conform to the controls in Part C1.6 of the LDCP.

45. During oral evidence, Mr Bazergy referred to the width of the proposed right of footway as being 910mm at its narrowest point, and explained that the Ausroads standard regarding footpaths requires a minimum width of 1.2m but can be reduced to 1m at a pinch point. Mr Bazergy was of the view that the width of the proposed right of footway was sufficient for pedestrians, but too narrow if a wheelchair or pram was to attempt to gain access to Proposed Lot 2.

Applicant’s submissions

46. The applicant submits that this case concerns existing buildings and is not a matter where lines can simply be drawn on a page in advance of construction. The proposed subdivision must necessarily reflect the existing buildings which contribute to the heritage and character of the area. The applicant further submits that there is no discernible impact from a departure from the LDCP controls as proposed by the Amended Development Application and the LDCP controls should be applied flexibly in this case. Finally, the applicant maintains that the proposed right of footway is appropriate in the circumstances, and it would be unreasonable to demolish part of the existing dwelling to create greater visibility or width in circumstances where it is not required for ease of pedestrian access and an existing large tree will block the direct line of sight in any event.

47. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr North that:

1. The proposal will not alter the diverse streetscape rhythm or pattern of development given that it is not proposed to significantly change the existing built form and the resultant subdivision pattern would not be perceptible in the street scape. Further, given that the site is located in a conservation area and comprises a contributory building, there is little opportunity to substantially change the streetscape appearance of the site in the future and any future development subsequent to the proposed subdivision would be required to be sensitive to the existing character (Joint Town Planning Report at par 24).

2. Option A (which was largely adopted in the Amended Development Application) would create a pedestrian path approximately 1.5m wide (and widening out to the rear to avoid a significant tree) from an existing front gate on Turner Street, pass between the house and the eastern boundary, through new front and rear openings to the existing outbuilding structure which could form a type of “lynch gate” and then connect to Proposed Lot 2. A 1.8m paling fence may be appropriate behind the building line to define the right of way with perhaps a low picket fence or simply a delineated path forward of the building line (Joint Town Planning Report at par 30).

3. Either Option A or B would eliminate any doubt that the proposed new lot would have a frontage to a public road.

48. By way of oral evidence addressing the Amended Development Application and the proposed street frontage from Proposed Lot 2 to Turner Street via a right of footway burdening Proposed Lot 1, Mr North was of the view that:

1. The proposed right of footway appropriately addresses the LDCP objectives and controls.

2. There will be a 1.8m high fence for the majority of the right of footway which will physically separate Proposed Lots 1 and 2 and delineate the lots. There are numerous examples of common areas and shared driveways/access for battleaxe blocks, strata plans etc and the concepts proposed by the Amended Development Application “are not new”.

3. The potential for conflict between the proposed lots is negligible and the ownership of the right of footway is irrelevant to potential criminal behaviour.

Consideration

49. This matter concerns an existing dwelling and Studio/ex factory, built in approximately 1875 and 1940, respectively. I accept the applicant’s submission that the location of the structures is set and it is not a simple matter of drawing lines on a page to achieve an ideal subdivision pattern and direct road frontages prior to the construction of the dwellings.

50. By way of the Amended Development Application, the applicant seeks to address the subdivision objectives and controls of Part C1.6 of the LDCP. Having regard to the evidence and submissions in this case, I am satisfied that the proposed right of footway to Proposed Lot 2 from Turner Street adequately addresses the objectives and controls of Part C1.6 of the LDCP and warrants their flexible application.

51. This is because the Amended Development Application largely complies with the controls set out in Part C1.6 of the LDCP insofar as they are relevant as follows:

1. The minimum lot size control of 200m² is complied with (Part C1.6, Control C1).

2. It was not pressed by the respondent at hearing that the Amended Development Application was inconsistent with the prevailing subdivision pattern in the neighbourhood (Part C1.6, Control C2).

3. I am satisfied that the proposed right of footway does not propose unacceptable safety and security risks for the purposes of Control C6 in Part C1.6 of the LDCP, despite Proposed Lot 2 not being oriented to address the street (being Turner Street). I do not accept the proposition that the right of footway must form part of the lot boundary of Proposed Lot 2 instead of a right of footway registered on the title of both Proposed Lots 1 and 2 for safety and security reasons. The legal ownership of the pathway from Turner Street to Proposed Lot 2 makes no difference visually or practically to the way in which the land will be perceived by the public and therefore to the issue of crime and security.

4. While I accept Mr Miletic’s evidence that widening the right of footway would increase sight lines from Turner Street to Proposed Lot 2 and improve ease of access for pedestrians and cyclists, I do not accept that the benefits of widening the pathway at the “pinch point” justify the partial demolition of the utility room on the ground floor and bedroom on the first floor of the existing dwelling. This is because:

1. I accept that there is a large tree at the rear of Proposed Lot 1 which would obstruct a complete line of site from Turner Street to Proposed Lot 2 even if part of the existing dwelling was demolished;

2. there was no cogent evidence that crime would be increased by a lack of direct sight from Turner Street to the dwelling on Proposed Lot 2; and

3. having traversed the proposed right of footway at the site view, I am satisfied that sufficient access is available for pedestrians and cyclists, and if there was a particular need for wider access to Proposed Lot 2, the existing right of way over the Drainage Reserve benefiting the Subject Land (and ultimately Proposed Lots 1 and 2) could be utilised.

5. I accept the evidence of Mr North that this type of access arrangement is not uncommon in battle axe or strata plan blocks and Control C6 should be applied flexibly in this case.

6. In respect of Control C7 requiring urban infrastructure such as water, sewerage and drainage to be provided, this matter is addressed at [62] - [63].

7. Proposed Lot 1 has a direct street frontage to Turner Street and Proposed Lot 2 will have direct access to Turner Street via the proposed right of footway, including a letterbox, street number and wayfinding signage. In circumstances where the proposed dwelling structures already exist and direct access can be provided to Proposed Lot 2 from a public road via the right of footway, it is appropriate to allow flexibility in respect of Control C9.

Is the Subject Land suitable for an additional dwelling on Proposed Lot 2?

Respondent’s submissions

52. The respondent contends that the Subject Land is not suitable for the proposed subdivision and resultant additional dwelling house within Proposed Lot 2 due to the frontage of Proposed Lot 2 to the Drainage Reserve, being a narrow shared right of way of insufficient width, and which fails to comply with various objectives and controls in Part C1.7 relating to “Site Facilities”, Part C1.9 relating to “Safety By Design” and Part C1.18 relating to “Laneways” of the LDCP.

53. The respondent relies on the evidence of Mr Miletic that:

1. The Drainage Reserve has a width of 3.05m and the proposed change of use of the existing outbuilding to a dwelling house within Proposed Lot 2 fails to comply with Council’s requirements for Narrow Lanes with a width of 2.5m to 5m, which do not permit additional lane fronting dwellings and seek to protect and enhance the service function and character of the lane contrary to Control C1 and Objectives O1(a), (b) and (c) in Part C1.18 of the LDCP. The proposal is also inconsistent with the laneway hierarchy shown in Table C11 in Part C1.18 of the LDCP. The confusion around the entry to Proposed Lot 2 will increase the use of the Drainage Reserve which is inappropriate as the primary access to Proposed Lot 2 having regard to Part C1.18 of the LDCP. The Drainage Reserve is not a public road and Proposed Lot 2 would therefore be effectively “landlocked”.

2. The reliance on the Drainage Reserve for access is inappropriate as it is approximately 50m in length to Cardwell Street which does not achieve the CPTED principle of surveillance, legibility and territoriality due to the landlocked configuration and inability for residents and passers-by to observe and monitor activities, the challenge for residents, service providers and emergency responders to locate the address, and the boundaries of Proposed Lot 2 being unclear. The proposal therefore does not comply with Objective O4(d) and Controls C1(a)(i), (iii) and (v) and C1(c)(i) of Pt C1.9 of the LDCP. The primary frontage to Proposed Lot 2 will still present as the Drainage Reserve as the entry to Proposed Lot 2 will not be visible from Turner Street and the letterbox and number proposed on Turner Street is “not enough” to change this perception.

Applicant’s submissions

54. The applicant submits that the primary access to Proposed Lot 2 will be via the right of footway from Turner Street and that this will be clear from the letterbox, street number and wayfinding signage on Turner Street. The secondary access from the Drainage Reserve “is of no consequence”, being a legal right of access provided by a right of way registered on title. The applicant submits that the respondent’s fixation on labelling Proposed Lot 2 as “landlocked” is inaccurate, given that it will have pedestrian access via the proposed right of footway as well as legal secondary access via the Drainage Reserve.

55. Mr North expressed the view that the Drainage Reserve has a laneway character and there is great diversity of access types in the locality including narrow rights of way, pedestrian access only over unformed roads and the like, being reflective of the historical diversity of Balmain and the locality. Mr North was further of the view that the Drainage Reserve provides a straight thoroughfare which provides clear visibility from Cardwell Street to the Subject Land and is already used by multiple properties for access, which will remain unchanged by the proposal.

Consideration

56. I accept the applicant’s submission that Proposed Lot 2 will not be landlocked in any real or practical manner. The Subject Land presently enjoys a right of carriageway over the Drainage Reserve that includes vehicular and pedestrian access (noting that the garage for the Subject Land is presently accessed via the Drainage Reserve). Both Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will retain this legal right of vehicular and pedestrian access over the Drainage Reserve if the Amended Development Application is approved (although only Proposed Lot 1 will have on-site parking). This is an existing legal access right that will be unchanged by the Amended Development Application. I do not accept that the proposed development will put more or undue strain on the Drainage Reserve as Proposed Lot 2 will have no on-site parking and would therefore be unlikely to utilise the Drainage Reserve for regular vehicular access. Otherwise, the Amended Development Application proposes primary access to Proposed Lot 2 via the right of footway from Turner Street burdening Proposed Lot 1. Further, a letterbox servicing Proposed Lot 2 will be located on Turner Street as previously described. I am therefore satisfied that the Amended Development Application generally complies with the objectives and controls in C1.7 “Site Facilities” in the LDCP.

57. I accept the evidence of Mr North that Balmain is a locality of historical diversity and that many forms of access exist in the area (see Ex H). To this end, I note that we inspected properties at the site view which benefited from non-standard access such as 2-12 Punch Street (which had no vehicular access and fronted onto a reserve), and 2, 4, 19A and 19B King Lane (which had sole access via a lane approximately 4-5m wide).

58. I accept the evidence of Mr North that the Drainage Reserve is already being used for access for a number of properties and there is no reason to believe that additional use by one dwelling will increase CPTED concerns. I further note that the Drainage Reserve is straight in nature and, as was pointed out at the site view, quite an open area with clear lines of sight from multiple properties that back onto it. In addition, for the reasons set out at [51(3)], I do not accept that the proposed right of footway over Proposed Lot 1 causes unacceptable safety risks.

59. Having regard to the evidence and submissions in this case, I do not accept the respondent’s argument that the Amended Development Application should be refused on the basis of the lack of suitability of the Subject Land for an additional dwelling in the existing Studio. I am satisfied that the Amended Development Application warrants the flexible application of the controls in C1.9 “Safety by Design” and C1.18 “Laneways” to the extent that it does not strictly comply.

Are adequate services available to Proposed Lot 2?

60. The respondent relies on the evidence of Mr Bazergy to submit that the applicant must demonstrate easement rights for services and stormwater drainage in order for the Amended Development Application to be approved. The respondent emphasises that the right of way over the Drainage Reserve benefiting the Subject Land does not provide private easement rights for services and stormwater drainage.

61. The applicant submits that the Subject Land is presently connected to services, including the Studio on Proposed Lot 2. The applicant maintains that there is no reason to doubt that services cannot be connected in the usual manner, noting that Council’s DA checklist (Ex M) does not require proof of services in order to lodge a development application and have it assessed. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Eivazzadeh that services will be able to be provided and that a detailed services plan can be provided as part of Construction Certificate documentation. Mr Eivazzadeh prepared a concept utility plan attached to the Joint Engineering Report to depict the proposed alignment of essential services (Proposed Services Plan).

Consideration

62. I accept that the Subject Land is presently connected to all relevant services, including the Studio which will form the dwelling on Proposed Lot 2. I accept evidence of Mr Eivazzadeh that services will be able to be connected for Proposed Lot 2, likely through easements created burdening Proposed Lot 1 as shown on the Proposed Services Plan. To this end, I note that the applicant presently owns the Subject Land (and therefore both Proposed Lots 1 and 2) and therefore does not need to rely on negotiating easements etc with a third party to obtain service connections. I further note that the IWLEP does not contain an “essential services” provision.

63. I therefore do not accept that a lack of documentary evidence of approval from all relevant utility providers is required to be submitted in order for the Amended Development Application to be approved and that this matter is appropriate to be dealt with by way of condition.

Conditions

64. As I have determined to approve the Amended Development Application, it is necessary to determine the conditions of consent which should be imposed.

65. The applicant provided its proposed conditions of consent on 22 August 2024 (Applicant Conditions). The respondent provided its proposed conditions of consent on 26 August 2024 (Respondent Conditions). There are a number of conditions upon which the parties disagree. This judgment adopts the numbering as proposed by the Respondent Conditions and makes amendments to those conditions as per the below.

66. The parties disagree on the scope and application of the following conditions (utilising the numbering in the Respondent Conditions):

1. Condition 1A: Deferred Commencement Conditions (it is noted that a number of the Applicant Conditions are proposed to be included as deferred commencement conditions in the Respondent Conditions);

2. Condition 20: Security Deposit – Custom;

3. Condition 22: Stormwater Drainage System – Minor Developments (OSD/OSR is required);

4. Condition 23: Public Domain Works;

5. Condition 25: Construction Methods to Minimise Impact on Trees;

6. Condition 30: Dilapidation Report;

7. Condition 33: Tree Protection;

8. Condition 34: Limited Root Pruning;

9. Condition 38: Works within the Drainage Reserve;

10. Condition 39: Public Domain Works;

11. Condition 41: Dilapidation Report; and

12. Condition 48: Easements, Restrictions on the Use of Land and Positive Covenants.

67. These conditions are considered below.

Condition 1A – Deferred Commencement Conditions

68. The respondent seeks to impose a deferred commencement condition requiring the applicant to submit, amongst other things, documentary evidence of approval of the detailed services plans from all relevant utility authorities prior to the issue of any operational consent. Having regard to the reasons set out at [62], I am satisfied that proposed Applicant Condition 26A adequately addresses the issue of services prior to the commencement of any works and should be imposed in place of proposed Respondent Condition 1A(1).

69. I am similarly satisfied that proposed Applicant Condition 26B adequately addresses structural engineering certification issues regarding services not adversely impacting the existing dwelling from a structural or heritage perspective and this is not required to be a deferred commencement condition. I therefore decline to impose proposed Respondent Condition 1A(2).

70. In respect of proposed Respondent Condition 1A(3) and (4) regarding tree protection and removal, I consider these appropriate to be included in proposed Respondent Condition 25, being “before issue of a construction certificate” rather than a deferred commencement condition. To reflect this change, and as the proposed right of footway over Proposed Lot 1 requires the removal of some “shrubs” (as identified on the plans at Ex A and viewed on the site view), Condition 25 should be amended as follows:

25 Construction Methods to Minimise Impact on Trees

1.    Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, a site specific Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist (Level 5 AQF) is to be provided to the Certifying Authority to ensure any trees on the Site, or in the vicinity of the Site, will not be adversely affected by the proposed works.

The report shall also include a detailed and site specific inspection regime detailing key milestones to be reviewed and signed off on completion.

Reason: To ensure that no adverse impacts arise to existing trees from the proposed pathway, ground disturbance and infrastructure works.

2.    No approval is granted or implied for any tree removal. A separate application to remove any trees affected by the proposed works must be submitted to, and approved by, Council. For the avoidance of doubt, this Condition 25(2) does not apply to the “shrubs” identified for removal on Plans 2022/17/DA.03_F and 2022/17/DA.04_F.

Reason: To ensure any relevant approval for tree removal is obtained if existing trees cannot be suitably protected in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Report.

3.    Prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority must verify that no proposed underground services are located beneath the canopy of any prescribed tree/s located on the subject site and adjoining sites (including trees located within the public domain).

Reason: To mitigate the impact of the work on trees to be retained.

71. Having regard to the facts and evidence in this case, I do not accept that proposed Respondent Condition 1A(5) requiring documentary evidence from emergency services confirming satisfactory access for emergency operations is available to Proposed Lot 2 is required. I am satisfied that Proposed Lot 2 will have dual access from both Turner Street via the right of footway and both pedestrian and vehicular access (to the boundary of Proposed Lot 2) from the Drainage Reserve from Cardwell Lane if required and that this is sufficient in the circumstances.

72. I decline to impose proposed Respondent Condition 1A(6) requiring the applicant to demolish part of the existing dwelling to facilitate a wider right of footway over Proposed Lot 1 for the reasons set out at [51(4)]. I similarly decline to impose proposed Respondent Condition 1A(7) for the same reasons.

73. Proposed Respondent Condition 1A(8) requiring the erection of a 1.8m high timber fence is unnecessary as the plans at Ex A address this requirement and it is not required as a deferred commencement condition.

74. I am content to impose proposed Respondent Condition 1A(9) and 1A(10) on the basis that these conditions require clarification as to what unauthorised works have been carried out and what is specifically sought to be approved by the Amended Development Application. They also require the applicant to submit and obtain a building information certificate in respect of any unauthorised works that are proposed to remain and for which consent for use is sought under the Amended Development Application. Similarly, I am satisfied that the requirement for consistent plans is appropriate to be imposed as a deferred commencement condition. Proposed Respondent Conditions 1A(9) and (10) will therefore become Conditions 1A(1) and (2) respectively in the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Condition 20 – Security Deposit – Custom

75. I accept the respondent’s proposed typographical correction to this condition.

Condition 22 – Stormwater Drainage System – Minor Developments (OSD/OSR is required)

76. I accept the clarificatory amendments proposed by the respondent in Respondent Condition 22.

Condition 23 – Public Domain Works

77. Given that Proposed Lot 2 will have no car parking accessed via the Drainage Reserve or otherwise, and Proposed Lot 1 will continue to have the same vehicular access via the Drainage Reserve as the Subject Land presently enjoys, I decline to impose the conditions of consent proposed by the respondent requiring the applicant to construct an all-weather sealed pavement with kerb and gutter within the Drainage Reserve between Cardwell Street and the pedestrian access point to Proposed Lot 2, suitable for vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. I am content that Condition 23 as proposed in the Applicant Conditions is appropriate in the circumstances.

Condition 25 – Construction Methods to Minimise Impact on Trees

78. This condition is addressed at [70].

Condition 30 – Dilapidation Report

79. I am content to impose proposed Respondent Condition 30 which requires dilapidation reports for 2 and 6 Turner Street and 29 King Street (as opposed to 2 Turner Street only) and clarification of the purpose and scope of the reports on the basis that the exact location of services to Proposed Lot 2 has not yet been finalised.

Condition 33 – Tree Protection

80. I decline to impose proposed Respondent Condition 33 requiring the retention of specified trees on the basis that the condition does not refer to a plan that allows the trees to be properly identified and further, is not necessary due to Condition 25 (as amended) which specifically states that no trees are permitted to be removed under this consent. Proposed Applicant Condition 33 is to be imposed instead.

Condition 34 – Limited Root Pruning

81. Having regard to proposed Respondent Condition 34, proposed Applicant Condition 34 and (amended) Condition 25, I am satisfied that the following Condition 34 should be imposed:

34 Tree Protection Works

All tree protection for the site must be undertaken in accordance with the Aboricultural Impact Assessment Tree Protection Plan required to be prepared under Condition 25, Council’s Development Fact Sheet – Trees on Development Sites, and AS4970 – Protection of trees on development sites.

A suitably qualified arborist (level 5 ADF) is to supervise works in or in the vicinity of trees on the Site to ensure they will not be adversely affected by the proposed works.

Reason: To protect and retain trees.

82. I am of the view that additional conditions requiring tree roots proposed by the respondent are not required having regard to the protection measures required by (amended) condition 34 above.

Condition 38 – Works with the Drainage Reserve and Condition 39 – Public Domain Works

83. Having regard to the facts and evidence in this case, including my findings at [77], I decline to impose proposed Respondent Condition 38 on the basis that proposed Applicant Condition 39 is adequate to ensure works in the Drainage Reserve have been carried out in in accordance with relevant standards and specifications.

84. It is for these reasons that proposed Applicant Condition 39 should also be imposed in place of proposed Respondent Condition 39.

Condition 41 – Dilapidation Report

85. For the reasons given at [79], I accept proposed Respondent Condition 41.

Condition 48 – Easements, Restrictions on the Use of Land and Positive Covenants

86. I accept that the respondent’s proposed clarifications to proposed Respondent Condition 48 are appropriate.

Submissions

87. As set out at [14], the Development Application was notified from 15 to 29 June 2023. One submission was received raising concerns relating to fire safety, noise and heritage impacts.

88. I confirm that the submission received has been taken into consideration in the assessment and determination of the Amended Development Application.

Conclusion

89. Ultimately, having regard to the facts, evidence and submissions in this case, I am satisfied that the Amended Development Application should be approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A, having regard to the matters listed for consideration in s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

90. Noting that the Subject Land contains two longstanding existing structures forming part of the HCA and their use as dwellings will not cause any adverse impacts on the natural and built environments or social and economic impacts in the locality, I am satisfied that the Subject Land is suitable for the proposed development and in the public interest.

Orders

91. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application No DA/2023/0424, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing studio, use of the studio as a dwelling and Torrens title subdivision of one lot into two lots at 4 Turner Street, Balmain, is granted development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. The exhibits are returned except for Exhibits A, B, M, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

N Targett

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

**********

Endnote

Decision last updated: 25 October 2024