Dilles v Randwick City Council

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – alterations and additions to boarding house - existing use rights – justification of contravention of floor space ratio development standard - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 4.65, 4.66, 8.7, Div 4.11, Pt 7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.7
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, cl 30A
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Ch 2
Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 71 (Coogee Precinct)

Cases Cited: Star Property Investments Pty Ltd and Another v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2000] NSWLEC 235
Woollahra Municipal Council v Banool Developments Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 65; (1973) 129 CLR 138
Woollahra Municipal Council v TAJJ Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 49 LGRA 123
Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 71

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Nickolas Dilles (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
N Eastman SC (Applicant)
S Patterson (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/153066

Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA/1089/2023 seeking consent for works to a former boarding house to enable the provision of 11 boarding rooms and construction of new rear fire stairs (Proposed Development) at 115 Dolphin Street, Coogee legally described as Lot A in DP 951558 (the Site).

2. The hearing of the proceedings commenced on site on 26 June 2025. The parties advised the court that the parties’ experts agree that all contentions raised in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 31 May 2024 (SOFAC) have been resolved by the preparation of the:

3. Amended architectural plans, revision C, dated 1 December 2024 (Amended Plans), and

4. Agreed conditions of consent.

5. The Amended Plans include the following amendments to the application that was originally filed with the Class 1 Application:

6. Introduction of new upper level to accommodate communal open space, kitchen, living room, laundry and outdoor drying yard;

7. Internal reconfiguration across all levels to enhance amenity of future occupants;

8. Internalising of proposed fire stair; and

9. Provision of bike storage area at rear.

10. Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 26 June 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

11. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

12. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

13. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

14. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of Div 4.11 of the EPA Act as to existing use rights and cl 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) to vary a development standard. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed jurisdictional statement provided to the court.

15. The Applicant is the owner of the Site.

16. The Proposed Development was notified by the Respondent for a period of fourteen days between 11 and 25 January 2024. A total of 9 submissions were received by the Respondent during that notification period. These submissions have been taken into consideration by the Respondent Council as consent authority. The Amended Plans were renotified between 20 February and 6 March 2025. Eleven submissions were received by the Respondent in response to that renotification. Council’s planner has considered the matters raised in these submissions and formed the view that the relevant concerns have been adequately addressed by conditions of consent ensuring matters including noise, privacy, safety, waste storage and appropriate landscaping species to minimise solar impact.

Does the Site benefit from existing use rights?

11. The applicant seeks consent to continue the use of an existing boarding house as originally approved on the basis of its existing use rights pursuant to the provisions under Div 4.11 of the EPA Act.

12. An ‘exiting use’ is defined in s 4.65 of the EPA as follows:

4.65 Definition of “existing use”

In this Division, existing use means—

a) the use of a building, work or land for a lawful purpose immediately before the coming into force of an environmental planning instrument which would, but for this Division, have the effect of prohibiting that use, and

b) the use of a building, work or land—

(i) for which development consent was granted before the commencement of a provision of an environmental planning instrument having the effect of prohibiting the use, and

(ii) that has been carried out, within one year after the date on which that provision commenced, in accordance with the terms of the consent and to such an extent as to ensure (apart from that provision) that the development consent would not lapse.

13. The Respondent had raised a contention regarding the fact that the use of the Site as a boarding house ceased on 19 August 2019 following a fire that substantially damaged the existing boarding house at the property and, that an existing use is presumed to be abandoned if the use ceases for a continuation period of 12 months pursuant to s 4.66 of the EPA Act.

14. The purpose of the Proposed Development is to repair and reconstruct the building to enable the existing use to recommence. An applicant who seeks to maintain an existing use bears the onus to demonstrate that at all times there was a requisite intention to maintain the existing use: Star Property Investments Pty Ltd and Another v Leichhardt Municipal Council [2000] NSWLEC 235

15. The Applicant has provided statutory declarations setting out the factual background and the parties agree that the Site does benefit from existing use rights and provide the following explanation.

16. The Site has been used as a privately operated boarding house since at least 1981 and in 1994 the Site was the subject of development consent DA/583/1994 and BA/1409/1994 for use as a nine-bedroom boarding house. At this time ‘boarding houses’ were permissible on the Site pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan No 71 (Coogee Precinct). The lawfully approved use of the existing building as a boarding house continued until 19 August 2019.

17. The Applicant seeks to rely on existing use rights because the RLEP, which commenced on 1 March 2013, has since been amended and the current definition of boarding house effectively prohibits the use as a boarding house unless it is carried out by or on behalf of the Land and Housing Corporation – managed by a registered community housing provider.

18. The Site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential (R3 Zone) pursuant to the Land Use Table of the RLEP. ‘Boarding houses’ are permissible in the R3 Zone however the definition of ‘boarding house’ at commencement of the RLEP was as follows:

boarding house means a building that—

a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

Note—

Boarding houses are a type of residential accommodation—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary

19. On 14 July 2021 the RLEP was amended and the current definition of ‘boarding house’ changed to the following [with emphasis added]:

boarding house means a building or place—

a) that provides residents with a principal place of residence for at least 3 months, and

b) that contains shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

c) that contains rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, and

d) used to provide affordable housing, and

e) if not carried out by or on behalf of the Land and Housing Corporation - managed by a registered community housing provider,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, co-living housing, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

20. The lawfully approved use does not meet the current definition of ‘boarding house’ because the lawfully approved use was not, and never has been, carried out by or on behalf of the Land and Housing Corporation, nor managed by a registered community housing provider.

21. Despite the Proposed Development being currently prohibited in the R3 Zone, it remains consistent with the objectives of the R3 Zone, which are as follows:

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

To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

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

To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

To protect the amenity of residents.

To encourage housing affordability.

To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

22. The Court is satisfied that the lawfully approved use meets the definition of ‘existing use’ pursuant to s 4.65 of the EPA Act and that Part 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 applies to the Site in respect to the existing use.

23. The Applicant relies on s 4.66 of the EPA Act which provides as follows:

4.66 Continuance of and limitations on existing use

(cf previous s 107)

(1) Except where expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act or an environmental planning instrument prevents the continuance of an existing use.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) authorises—

(a) any alteration or extension to or rebuilding of a building or work, or

(b) any increase in the area of the use made of a building, work or land from the area actually physically and lawfully used immediately before the coming into operation of the instrument therein mentioned, or

(c) without affecting paragraph (a) or (b), any enlargement or expansion or intensification of an existing use, or

(d) the continuance of the use therein mentioned in breach of any consent in force under this Act in relation to that use or any condition imposed or applicable to that consent or in breach of any condition referred to in section 4.17(1)(b), or

(e) the continuance of the use therein mentioned where that use is abandoned.

(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2)(e), a use is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, to be abandoned if it ceases to be actually so used for a continuous period of 12 months.

(4) During the period commencing on 25 March 2020 and ending on 25 March 2022, the reference to 12 months in subsection (3) is taken to be a reference to 3 years.

24. Cases such as Woollahra Municipal Council v Banool Developments Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 65; (1973) 129 CLR 138 and Woollahra Municipal Council v TAJJ Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 49 LGRA 123 make it clear that even the total cessation of a use for a short period will not constitute abandonment of that use in circumstances where it is intended that the use be continued in the future.

25. The applicant has provided extensive evidence of their intention to continue the existing use after the property was damaged by fire in August 2019, including evidence of a protracted insurance claim and preparation of the subject development application which was lodged with Council on 29 December 2023.

26. Woollahra Municipal Council v Banool Developments Pty Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 138 is also authority for the proposition that lodging a development application seeking approval for a different use does not show an intention to cease an existing use.

27. Consideration has been given to the Court’s planning principles relating to the assessment of proposed redevelopment of properties with the benefit of existing use rights. In particular, the four questions listed at paragraph [17] in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council (2005) 141 LGERA 14; [2005] NSWLEC 71 have been considered and found to have been satisfactorily resolved by the amended proposal.

28. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the existing use has not been abandoned.

29. The potential for the Site to be contaminated has been considered pursuant to s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) and the parties agree that contamination is unlikely because of the historical use of the Site for residential purposes, as identified in the SOFAC and also at page 8 of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Brad Inwood (SEE) filed with the Class Application at Tab 3.

30. The Site is not identified as being:

31. situated within a Flood Planning Area: cl 5.21, RLEP

32. located in an acid sulfate high risk classification area: cl 6.1, RLEP.

33. a ‘coastal use area’, a ‘coastal vulnerability area’ or ‘coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest area’ pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.

34. The Proposed Development complies with the maximum height of building (HOB) development standard for the Site at 12m pursuant to cl 4.3 of the RLEP because a maximum HOB of 10.6m is proposed as depicted in Drawing 0810-205 Rev C.

Justification of the contravention of the FSR development standard

32. The Proposed Development results in a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.18:1 which contravenes the FSR development standard of 0.9:1 pursuant to cl 4.4 of the RLEP. Development consent may, subject to cl 4.6 of the RLEP, be granted for development even though the development contravenes a development standard.

33. The Applicant relies on a written request to justify the contravention of the FSR development standard pursuant to cl.4.6 of RLEP prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd dated June 2025.

34. As required by cl 4.6(3)(a) of the RLEP, the Written Request demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances because the Proposed Development achieves the objectives of the development standard as demonstrated in the table at pp 5-7 of the Written Request. I note that the fourth objective of the FSR development standard is to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. As this Proposed Development attracted a number of concerns of a similar nature, I reproduce from the Written Request how it is demonstrated that the Proposed Development achieves that objective below as follows:

“The proposed exceedance of the FSR control will not create unreasonable environmental amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing, loss of views, loss of privacy, or loss of visual amenity, and a reduction in this FSR would not create additional benefits for adjoining properties or the locality.

Overshadowing: Given that the height, bulk and scale of the proposed built form that is associated with the variation is less than what is anticipated by the controls, the extent of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties on either side is significantly less than that which could be contemplated by the controls.

Furthermore, the shadowing associated with the primarily part 2 storey built form is substantially below the built form that was approved on the site by the court, which included four storeys with a recessed fifth storey.

In addition, the proposed built form is similar in height, bulk and scale to the building that has historically existed on the subject site, with the only difference being the recessed and minor 3rd storey element.

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the minor 3rd storey element does not generate any adverse shadow impacts to any primary living or private open space areas on the adjoining properties on either side.

The extent of shadowing to the public domain, being the footpath to the south of the site, is also less than what would be anticipated by a building with a 3 to 4 storey form.

On this basis, the objective is satisfied despite the variation.

View Loss: Given that the height of the proposed built form is below both the overall height limits under the LEP and DCP, it is considered that the proposed FSR variation would not generate any unreasonable view impacts.

Views over Coogee Oval to the south and coastal areas to the southeast are maintained despite the FSR variation. This includes views from the properties' either side and views from the rear at Beams Street.

On this basis, the objective is satisfied despite the variation.

Privacy: The 2 to 3-storey built form is not responsible for any adverse privacy impacts, as the built form is well below the height and scale that could be achieved on the subject site. Furthermore, a potential residential flat building (which is permitted on this site) could involve living and balcony areas on each level, which would generate greater privacy impacts than the two-storey boarding house, whereby only front and rear-facing 1st-floor Juliet balconies are proposed. The 1.6m high screens to the sides and rear of the balconies also avoid any privacy impacts.

The FSR variation is associated with a boarding house which has a predominantly internalised room layout which minimises privacy impacts. It is acknowledged that the minor and recessed 3rd storey element includes a communal room with outdoor areas; however, such areas are appropriately screened to mitigate any potential visual or acoustic privacy impacts. The accompanying Plan of Management also includes restrictions on the hours of usage of the indoor and outdoor areas, which further ensures that the FSR variation is not responsible for any adverse privacy impacts.

When compared with the adjoining residential flat buildings, it is noted that the buildings on either side and to the rear have multiple elevated balconies, none of which are time-limited by consents. On this basis, the objective is satisfied by the variation.”

35. As required by cl 4.6(3)(b) of the RLEP, the Written Request demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention on the development standard because the Proposed Development “will provide a suitable design and amenity in terms of the built environment and represents the orderly and economic use and development of land, which are identified as objects of the Act (Section 1.3 of the EP&A Act and the building envelope and design of the proposal responds appropriately to the unique opportunities and constraints of the site” (Written Request, p 11). The Written Request lists up to 12 ways this is achieved and includes an extract from the streetscape elevation “demonstrating that the proposed development is compatible with the bulk and height of buildings along the streetscape.” I reproduce that extract from p 10 of the Written Request below:

36. The Court is satisfied that the applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.4 of the RLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of the RLEP.

37. Consent is sought for demolition pursuant to cl 2.7 of the RLEP to the extent that fire-damaged structures and materials are to be replaced to match the existing and to accommodate internal room reconfiguration.

38. Consent is also sought for some minor earthworks along the site boundaries and rear yard pursuant to cl 6.2 of the RLEP.

39. The existing building on the Site is not a heritage item, nor is it located within a heritage conservation area or within the vicinity of a heritage item. The requirements under cl 5.10 of the RLEP are therefore not engaged.

40. Stormwater engineering plans prepared by CW Consultants dated 2 December 2024 demonstrate a stormwater drainage system designed to avoid adverse impacts of urban stormwater on the land on which development is to be carried out, adjoining properties, and groundwater systems. The Court is therefore satisfied pursuant to cl 6.4(3) of the RLEP that the development:

41. is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting on-site infiltration of water, and

42. includes, if practicable, on-site stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water, and

43. avoids any significant adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact, and

44. incorporates, if practicable, water sensitive design principles.

45. The Site is not within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as it is approximately 3km south of the southern boundary of the Sydney Harbour Catchment.

46. The Site is identified by the RLEP as being located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Clause 6.7 of RLEP requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development has minimal visual impact on the coastline and contributes to the scenic quality of the foreshore. The impacts of the proposal upon the foreshore scenic protection are considered at p 16 of the SEE and the Court is satisfied that the Proposed Development, contributes to the scenic quality of the foreshore.

47. Although the Proposed Development does not seek consent pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP (ARH)), the Respondent has considered the provisions contained within this planning instrument as follows:

“The proposed development complies with the ‘must not refuse development standards’ in clause 29 as follows:

a. Clause 29(1) – FSR. The proposed development does not comply with the maximum FSR permitted for residential accommodation on the Land, however, a well-founded cl.4.6 written request has been prepared by the applicant’s planner.

b. Clause 29(2)(a) – Height. The Development complies with the maximum height limit under the RLEP.

c. Clause 29(2)(b) – Landscaped Area. The landscape treatment provided in the front setback is considered compatible with the streetscape.

d. Clause 29(2)(c) – Solar Access. The Development, as amended, provides a communal living room at the upper level which receives 3 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

e. Clause 29(2)(d) – Private Open Space. A private open space for the use of lodgers is provided on the upper level. Although less than 20 square meters in area, the space is considered acceptable in light of the adjoining spacious internal communal space, improved solar access and because the site is well serviced with public open spaces (including Coogee Beach and Coogee Oval).

f. Clause 29(2)(e) – Carparking. The existing development did not provide any off-street car parking. The DA does not propose any changes to the existing parking arrangement.

g. Cause 29(2)(f) – Accommodation sizes. All boarding rooms will be compliant with the minimum room area required in clause 29(2)(f).

All rooms have a kitchenette and bathroom as permitted by clause 29(3).

The proposed development’s compliance with all the relevant development standards in clause 30 is as follows:

a. Clause 30(a) – Communal Room. The Development has more than 5 boarding rooms and a communal living room is provided on the third upper level.

b. Clause 30(b) – Maximum Room Area. The proposed development complies with this provision as no boarding room will have a gross floor area of more than 25 square meters.

c. Clause 30(c) – Restriction on Number of Room Occupants. No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers by operation of the Plan of Management and conditions of consent.

d. Clause 30(d) – Bathroom and Kitchen Facilities. The Court would be satisfied that adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities are provided for each lodger in each boarding room.

e. Clause 30(e) – Boarding House Manager. The Development is not capable of accommodating 20 or more lodgers. No boarding room or on-site dwelling for a boarding house manager is therefore required.

f. Clause 30(f) – repealed.

g. Clause 30(g) - Commercial Zone. The Development is located in the R3 residential zone so this provision does not apply.

h. Clause 30(h) – Motorcycle and Bicycle Parking. The DA proposes 12 boarding rooms which requires 2 motorcycle spaces and 2 bicycle spaces. The DA provides 5 on-site bicycle parking spaces which is considered acceptable in the circumstances.”

44. The parties are satisfied that the compatibility of the Proposed Development with the character of the local area has been considered in accordance with cl 30A of the SEPP (ARH).

45. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I adopt the reasons given by the parties as set out in this judgment.

46. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Notations

47. The Court notes:

48. The Randwick City Council, as the relevant consent authority for the purposes of section 38(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, agrees to the amendment to Development Application No. DA/1089/2023 to rely upon the amended plans and documents set out below and which were filed with the Court on 26 June 2025:

| Plan | Drawn by | Dated | | Demolition Ground Floor, Dwg No. 0810-103, Rev A | Brad Inwood Architects | 29/11/2023 | | Demolition First Floor, Dwg No. 0810-104, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Ground Floor, Dwg No. 0810-101, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | First Floor, Dwg No. 0810-105, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Second Floor, Dwg No. 0810-106, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Roof, Dwg No. 0810-107, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | West Elevation, Dwg No. 0810-201, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | East Elevation, Dwg No. 0810-202, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | South Elevation, Dwg No. 0810-203, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | North Elevation, Dwg No. 0810-204, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Section, Dwg No. 0810-205, Rev C, Dwg No. 0810-401, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Rear Landscape Section, Dwg No. 0810-206, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Privacy Analysis Side Unit 01, Dwg No. 0810-207, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Privacy Analysis Side Unit 02, Dwg No. 0810-208, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Colours and Materials, Dwg No. 0810-301, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Streetscape, Dwg No. 0810-302, Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Calculations FSR Dwg No.0810 -401 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Calculations Landscape Area Dwg No. 0810 -402 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Calculations Site Coverage Dwg No. 0810 -403 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Site Management Plan Dwg no. 0810-501 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Erosion and Sediment Plan Dwg No. 0810-502 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Tree Protection Plan Dwg No. 0810-503 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Regulatory Requirements sheets 01 to 07 Dwg Nos. 0810-601 to 607 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 9am June 21 Dwg No. 0810-701 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 12 pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-702 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 3 pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-703 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 9am September 21 Dwg No. 0810-704 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 12 pm 21 September Dwg No. 0810-705 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Shadows 3pm September 21 Dwg No. 0810-706 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 9am June 21 Dwg No. 0810-707 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 10am June 21 Dwg No. 0810-708 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 11am June 21 Dwg No. 0810-709 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 12pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-710 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 1pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-711 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 2pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-712 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 3pm June 21 Dwg No. 0810-713 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 9am Mar/Sept 21 Dwg No. 0810-714 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 12pm Mar/Sept 21 Dwg No. 0810-715 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Communal Area Shadow Analysis 3pm Mar/Sept 21 Dwg No. 0810-716 Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Landscape Plan, Dwg No. 1345-01 | Plumgrove Landscapes | 10/09/2024 | | Landscape Plan, Dwg No. 1345-02 | Plumgrove Landscapes | 10/09/2024 | | Proposed Drainage Plan, Job No. 16-313, No. D1-C | CW Consultants | 02/12/2024 | | Waste Management Plan | Brad inward Architects | 01/12/2024 | | June 21-11:00 Shadow Diagram View from the Sun SK001 Rev 11-02-2025 | Smith & Tzannes | 11-02-2025 | | June 21 Shadow Diagram View from the Sun 2 SK001 Rev 11-02-2925 | Smith & Tzannes | 11-02-2025 | | Sun Eye Diagrams Northern Side Jun 21 Dwg Nos. 0810-717 to 723 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Sun Eye Diagrams Northeast Corner June 21 Dwg Nos. 0810-724 to 727 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Sun Eye Diagrams Northwest Corner June 21 Dwg Nos. 0810-728 to 731 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Sun Eye Diagrams Southeast Corner June 21 Dwg Nos. 0810-747 to 749 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Sun Eye Diagrams Southwest Corner June 21 Dwg Nos. 0810-750 to 753 all Rev C | Brad Inwood Architects | 01/12/2024 | | Aboricultural Impact Assessment | Arborlogix | 18/12/2024 | | Disability Access Report | Southerncross BC | 5/12/2024 | | Noise Impact Assessment | National Noise & Vibration | 13/12/2024 | | Updated Plan of Management Boarding House | ABC Planning | December 2024 | | Regulatory Compliance Report | Southerncross BC | 5/12/2024 | | Section J Compliance Report 115 Dolphin Street Coogee | NatHERS Assessor NSW | 8 December 2024 | | Structural Specification and Adequacy certification | 5S Projects Consulting Engineers | 13 December 2024 | | Clause 4.6 request in relation to floor space ratio | ABC Planning | June 2025 |

Orders

48. The Court orders:

49. Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $7,800, such amount to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order.

50. The appeal is upheld.

51. The request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to vary the development standard for floor space ratio contained within cl 4.4 thereof, as prepared by ABC Planning dated 25 June 2025, is upheld.

52. Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. DA/1089/2023 for alterations and additions to an existing boarding house (existing use rights) including partial demolition, internal reconfiguration for the provision of 12 boarding rooms and a new lift within the existing building envelope, addition of a second floor including a communal living room, outdoor terrace and laundry facilities, fenestration and terrace changes, bike storage, earthworks, and landscaping subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (370 KB, pdf)

Architectural Plans (8.70 MB, pdf)

**********