Bounce Sydney Investments Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2026] NSWLEC 1002 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Bounce Sydney Investments Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2026] NSWLEC 1002 | Case summary | Zoe

COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act), brought by Bounce Sydney Investments Pty Ltd (the Applicant), against the deemed refusal of Development Application D/2025/33 (the DA) by The Council of the City of Sydney (the Respondent).
At the date of its lodgement on 21 January 2025, the DA sought consent for the extensive demolition of the existing buildings, the partial retention of the existing facade on George Street and the construction of a twelve-storey addition set back from George Street, with a basement level, primarily for backpackers and hotel accommodation, with associated bars, cafe and rooftop swimming pool, at 806-812A George Street, Haymarket (the site).
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 19 September, 13 October, 19 November, and 8, 12 and 17 December 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
During the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in these proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The agreement involves the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to an amended DA, subject to conditions.
Of particular note, the proposal has been amended by agreement between the parties to resolve the contentions raised by the Respondent. These contentions included issues of the absence of concurrence from Transport for NSW, concerns for potential site contamination, adverse flood affectation, a failure to exhibit design excellence, including inadequate internal amenity, unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties and unacceptable impacts on the local streetscape character, amongst other contentions.
Agreed design amendments have been made to improve the proposed building’s architectural expression and relationship to the site and its context, increasing the upper level setback to George Street. Changes have been made to improve internal amenity to communal spaces and accommodation rooms, including by increasing floor to ceiling heights in specific instances. The extent of the rooftop pool, bar and associated canopy have been consolidated to reduce building mass and its visibility from public vantage points. Other issues such as Transport for NSW concurrence, overshadowing impacts upon neighbouring properties, lift overrun details, and stormwater and flooding have been resolved by the provision of additional information.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the amended DA.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.
In that regard, I am satisfied the DA was made with the consent of the owner of the land, evidenced within the Class 1 Application and amended DA accompanying this matter.
The DA was publicly notified between 28 January and 26 February 2025 in accordance with the Respondent’s Community Engagement and Participation Plan 2024. A total of seven submissions were received by the Respondent raising concerns with the proposal, including in summary:
Impact on the neighbouring heritage listed Christ Church St Laurence church located immediately to the south of the site.
Excessive building bulk and scale, which is uncharacteristic within the context of the street block.
At the commencement of the conciliation conference on the morning of 19 September 2025, representatives of the neighbouring church addressed the Court to state concerns for impacts upon the church, including cross viewing, overshadowing, acoustic privacy and construction phase impacts. The Court also visited a number of the church buildings to directly observe the relationship between the site and neighbouring buildings.
The amended DA was re-notified between 29 October and 12 November 2025. A further four submissions were received by the Respondent. These submissions typically restated concerns raised in earlier submissions, primarily regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the church and the appropriateness of the building, its character and expression within the context of the street block.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA and conditions of consent have been finalised, giving appropriate consideration to matters raised in public submissions. Accordingly, I am satisfied that s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act has been appropriately addressed.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP) is the relevant local environmental planning instrument. Pursuant to cl 2.1 of the SLEP, the site is zoned SP5 Metropolitan Centre. The amended DA - characterised as backpacker and hotel development - is permissible with consent within the SP5 zone.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 2.3 of the SLEP, the amended DA is consistent with the SP5 Metropolitan Centre zone objectives.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 2.7 of the SLEP - Demolition requires development consent - the amended DA proposes partial demolition of the existing structures occupying the site and the retention of the primary street facing facades.
Pursuant to cl 4.3 of the SLEP - Height of buildings - the site benefits from a development standard for building height of 50m. The amended DA proposes a maximum height of building of 53.59m, which exceeds the development standard by 3.59m or approximately 7.18%.
Clause 4.6(3) of the SLEP requires the consent authority (the Court in this instance) to be satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the relevant development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
Accordingly, the Applicant has provided a written document seeking to vary the relevant development standard for height of building, prepared by Gyde Planning and dated 21 October 2025.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the written document adequately justifies the proposed variance to the height of buildings development standard for the following reasons:
The amended DA is agreed to be of an appropriate form and scale that is compatible with the existing streetscape and desired future character of the immediate locality.
The amended DA generally presents to George Street as a fifteen-storey mixed backpackers’ and hotel accommodation development with the uppermost floor set back from the primary street frontage, which is consistent with the desired future character and compatible with nearby development and recent approvals.
The area of the building height exceedance is generally associated with the rooftop pool, bar and roof canopy, building core and lift overrun, which are centrally located within the site and have been consolidated to minimise its visibility from public vantage points at street level and from the neighbouring church buildings to the south of the site.
The proposed height exceedance does not give rise to unreasonable adverse visual impacts, overshadowing, disruption to views or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
The relevant objectives of the SLEP SP5 Metropolitan Centre land use zone include to recognise and provide for the pre-eminent role of business, office, retail, entertainment and tourist premises in Australia’s participation in the global economy; provide opportunities for an intensity of land uses commensurate with Sydney’s global status; permit a diversity of compatible land uses that are characteristic of Sydney’s global status and that serve the workforce, visitors and wider community; encourage the use of alternatives to private motor vehicles, including public transport, walking and cycling; promote land uses with active street frontages within podiums that contribute to the character of the street; promote the efficient and orderly development of land in a compact urban centre; promote a diversity of commercial opportunities varying in size, type and function, including new cultural, social and community facilities; recognise the important role that central Sydney’s public spaces, streets and amenity play in a global city; and promote the primary role of the zone as a centre for employment and permit residential accommodation and serviced apartments where the accommodation complements employment-generating land uses. I am satisfied the amended DA is consistent with these objectives.
The relevant objectives of cl 4.3 of the SLEP - Height of buildings - include to ensure the height of development is appropriate to the condition of the site and its context; to ensure appropriate height transitions between new development and heritage items and buildings in heritage conservation areas or special character areas; to promote the sharing of views outside Central Sydney; and to ensure appropriate height transitions from Central Sydney and Green Square Town Centre to adjoining areas. I am satisfied the amended DA meets these objectives.
Consequently, I am satisfied the Applicant’s cl 4.6 written document adequately justifies the proposed variation to the relevant height of building development standard, and I find to uphold the written request.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that all remaining principal development standards of the SLEP, in particular for floor space ratio (FSR) at cl 4.4 of the SLEP, have been met by the amended DA.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 5.10 of the SLEP - Heritage conservation - the site is not an identified heritage item, nor is it situated within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). However, the site is within close proximity of a number of identified heritage items. The Applicant has provided a Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Weir Phillips and dated January 2025. This statement concluded that the amended DA has a small and acceptable impact on the significance of the heritage items in the vicinity of the site, and in particular, it will not impact the key views on the Sydney Terminal and Central Railway Station.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 5.21 of the SLEP - Flood planning - the site is not mapped within a flood planning area, however it is subject to minor flooding during significant storm events. The Applicant has provided an Amended Flood Management Report, prepared by JCO Consultants and dated 22 October 2025. This report confirms that the amended DA will not be a significant flooding risk, nor will it introduce any new obstructions to flood behaviour and will not have an adverse impact on current flood conditions. To further mitigate against the risk of flooding, the report makes recommendations for the minimum finished floor level at street level, a shelter in place strategy during significant flooding events, and for the building to be constructed with flood compatible materials. Agreed conditions of consent are imposed, reflecting the findings of the report.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the amended DA satisfactorily addresses those matters of consideration set out at cl 5.21(2) and (3) of the SLEP.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 6.4 of the SLEP - Accommodation floor space - the site is situated within Area 4 of the relevant FSR map and the amended DA proposes development for hotel accommodation and retail premises. As such, the amended DA is eligible for bonus FSR of 1.5:1 in addition to the maximum FSR of 7.5:1 made available under cl 4.4. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the amended DA complies with these applicable FSR clauses.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 6.16 of the SLEP - Erection of tall buildings in Central Sydney - given the amended DA proposes to access bonus FSR, the consent authority (the Court) must be satisfied of those matters set out in at cl 6.16(3).
To this end, the Applicant has provided an Environmental Wind Assessment Report prepared by Arup and dated 15 August 2025 and a Memorandum Letter to Wind Report prepared by Arup and dated 23 October 2025. These documents confirm that the resultant wind comfort in the vicinity of the amended DA will remain suitable for its intended use with mitigation measures. Additionally, no unsafe wind conditions are identified for the uses associated with the proposed terraces and rooftop bar.
Similarly, the Applicant has provided a Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Weir Phillips and dated January 2025, which has assessed the amended DA’s impacts upon nearby heritage items concluding that the proposed development will not result in new built form that would detract from the heritage significance of these items.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 6.17 of the SLEP - Sun Access Planes - the amended DA does not have any detrimental solar impacts on defined public places, including Belmore Park and Prince Alfred Park, between 10am and 2pm all year round, consistent with the terms of cl 6.17.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 6.18 of the SLEP - Overshadowing of certain public places - the site is identified within the Sun Access Protection Map. The amended DA will not result in any adverse overshadowing impacts to any area protected by sun access planes at the protected times.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 6.19 of the SLEP - View Planes - the amended DA will not interrupt the established view plane for the Central Station clocktower.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 7.3 of the SLEP - Car parking spaces not to exceed maximum set out in this Division - the amended DA proposes no car parking spaces, which is supported by the Respondent given the highly accessible location and complies with the provisions of cl 7.3.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that pursuant to cl 7.14 of the SLEP - Acid sulfate soils - the site is situated within a Class 5 area as mapped in the SLEP. The amended DA is accompanied by a Geotechnical Desktop Study, prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia Pty Ltd and dated 27 November 2024. This report concludes that there is no known occurrence of acid sulfate soils at the site, and that any impacts of the proposed development on the local acid sulfate soils is unlikely. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the amended DA satisfactorily addresses those matters set out at cl 7.14 of the SLEP.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP Resilience) is an additional relevant environmental planning instrument.
Chapter 4 of SEPP Resilience deals with remediation of land. Pursuant to s 4.6 of SEPP Resilience, the Applicant has provided a Preliminary Site Investigation, prepared by GCA and dated 18 December 2024, a Detailed Site Investigation prepared by GCA and dated 28 May 2025, an Amended Remediation Action Plan prepared by IROS Australia and dated 7 October 2025, and a Hazardous Materials Survey prepared by GCA and dated 28 May 2025. These documents conclude that the site can be made suitable for the proposed use and describe certain remediation works. Agreed conditions of consent are imposed requiring compliance with the recommendations in these reports.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP Infrastructure) is an additional relevant environmental planning instrument.
Section 2.101 of SEPP Infrastructure applies to the amended DA (at the date it was lodged) given the scale and value of the proposal, and its proximity to the existing light rail corridor along George Street. The amended DA was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW), and TfNSW has provided its concurrence on 27 November 2025. The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisite to the grant of consent has been satisfied.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (SEPP Sustainable Buildings). Consistent with s 3.2 of SEPP Sustainable Buildings, a NABERS Embodied Emissions Materials Form has been provided in support of the amended DA, quantifying the embodied emissions attributable to the development.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) is an additional relevant environmental planning instrument.
Chapter 6 of SEPP BC deals with water catchments and is relevant to the amended DA. The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the site is situated within the Sydney Harbour Catchment but outside the Foreshores and Waterways Area.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 6.6 of SEPP BC, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA will not create adverse impacts upon water quality and quantity within the catchment. Agreed storm water plans, prepared by JCO Consultants Pty Ltd describe a stormwater collection and management system. Agreed conditions of consent are imposed to control erosion and sediment during construction.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 6.7 of SEPP BC, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA will not create adverse impacts upon aquatic ecology within the catchment.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 6.8 of SEPP BC, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA is unlikely to have any impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems, and will not result in the release of pollutants that may have an adverse impact on water quality of a natural waterbody, or on the natural recession of floodwaters into wetlands or other riverine ecosystems.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 6.9 of SEPP BC, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA will have no impact upon recreational land or public access to foreshores or natural water bodies within the catchment.
Pursuant to the provisions of s 6.10 of SEPP BC, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the amended DA will have no adverse impacts upon adjacent or downstream local government areas within the catchment.
The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that those remaining relevant matters set out at s 4.15 of the EPA Act have been taken into consideration, and that the amended DA warrants the grant of consent, subject to conditions.
Having considered each of the preceding jurisdictional requirements and having formed the necessary view required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I find it is appropriate to make the orders agreed to by the parties and now dispose of the matter.
The Court notes that:
Pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), the Applicant has amended the DA with the approval of the Respondent.
The Applicant has lodged the amended DA with the Court on 17 December 2025.