COMMISSIONER: Nicholson Parade, in Cronulla, runs generally parallel to the foreshore of the Port Hacking River. This appeal concerns a development application for the construction of a dual occupancy at 123 Nicholson Parade. The development application was lodged on 19 June 2023. Following the expiry of the period after which a development application is deemed to be refused, the applicant lodged this appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [12] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 4 July 2024 and continued on 18 and 22 July 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.
At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. The final signed agreement was submitted on 22 July 2024. The agreement followed the grant of leave on 18 July 2024 torely on amended documents pursuant to orders sought in a Notice of Motion filed on 26 June 2024, and follows the Council's approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The amendments include an increase in the rear setback, reduction in height, addition of articulation to the side elevation and improved landscaping, and result in a dual occupancy that complies with development standards for height and floor space ratio.
The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by a Jurisdictional Note dated 24 July 2024 that sets out the matters for consideration prior to the grant of development consent. I have considered the contents of the Jurisdictional Note, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in condition 1. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the application subject to conditions of consent is a decision that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the reasons set out below.
The works are for the purpose of a dual occupancy. A dual occupancy is a prohibited use in the C4 Environmental Living zone in which the site is located, pursuant to the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP). The use for the purpose of a dual occupancy is made permissible pursuant to cl 2.5(1)(a) of the SSLEP and Sch 1 cl 28, and, pursuant to cl 2.5(1) must be carried out "in accordance with the conditions (if any) specified in that Schedule in relation to that development". Those conditions include that the lot size is greater than 700m2, whereas the lot size of the site is 692.2m2. Based on the wording of cl 2.5(1) and the position of the parties expressed in the Jurisdictional Note, I will proceed on the agreed basis that the lot size requirement is a condition specified in relation to the carrying out of that development, and is therefore a development standard as defined by the EPA Act, but make no formal finding in that regard (respectfully, the observations quoted from Stewart v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1595 provide little assistance).
Proceeding on the basis that the lot size requirement in Sch 1 cl 28 is a development standard, I am satisfied that consent should be granted notwithstanding the contravention of the minimum lot size for dual occupancy development. I am satisfied that the written request titled "Minimum lot size for dual occupancies in Zone C4", lodged pursuant to cl 4.6 of the SSLEP, adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach in the standard by demonstrating that variation is so minimal (1.11%) that it does not affect the ability of the development to achieve appropriate outcomes concerning landscaping and design. I am also satisfied that the written request demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given that the non-compliance will be visually imperceptible. Further, I am satisfied, based on the content of the written request, that the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the zone.
Further, the proposed development includes the strata subdivision of the dual occupancy. Clause 4.1B of the SSLEP imposes a minimum lot size of 700m2 for the strata subdivision of a dual occupancy. I am satisfied that consent can be granted notwithstanding the contravention of this minimum lot size development standard. For the same reasons given with respect to the written request concerning the minimum lot size for dual occupancies, I am satisfied that the written request titled "Minimum Strata Lot Size", lodged pursuant to cl 4.6 of the SSLEP, adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach in the standard by demonstrating that variation is so minimal (1.11%) that it does not affect the ability of the development to achieve appropriate outcomes. I am also satisfied that the written request demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary given that the non-compliance is so minor that it will be imperceptible. Further, I am satisfied, based on the content of the written request, that the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the objectives of the standard.
In relation to the remaining jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties:
1. The proposed development complies with the applicable development standards in the SSLEP for height and floor space ratio.
2. The development application includes earthworks for the provision of storage and for construction. Based on the geotechnical investigation and ASS Assessment Report dated 26 April 2024, I have considered the matters set out in cl 6.2(3) of the SSLEP.
Clause 6.4 of the SSLEP concerns stormwater management and applies to the proposed development. Based on the joint expert report of the stormwater engineers filed 24 June 2024, I am satisfied of the matters in cl 6.4(3) of the SSLEP.
Clause 6.13A of the SSLEP concerns green grid links on specified land, and applies to the subject site. Based on the landscape joint report filed 19 June 2024 and the location of the site, I have considered the matters in cl 6.13A(3) of the SSLEP.
The proposed development complies with cl 6.14 of the SSLEP, which requires a minimum landscaped area of 40%.
Clauses 6.16 and 6.17 of the SSLEP concern urban design and apply to the proposed development. Based on the joint report of the town planners filed on 20 June 2024 and the Statement of Environmental Effects dated May 2022 by Wynne Planning, I have considered the matters in cll 6.16(1) and 6.17 of the SSLEP.
1. Consistent with the requirements of s 27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the development application is accompanied by the BASIX certificate dated 26 June 2024.
2. Consideration has been given as to whether the subject site is contaminated as required by s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021. As the site has a history of use for the purposes of residential premises, it is unlikely to be contaminated.
The development application was notified between 20 June 2023 and 5 July 2023, and one submission was received. In addition, a number of residents who had been contacted concerning a potential easement, attended the site inspection and a town planner spoke on their behalf. I have considered the issues raised in both the written submission and in the submissions made at the site inspection.
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could make in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act requires me to "dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision". The LEC Act also requires me to "set out in writing the terms of the decision" (s 34(3)(b)).
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
The Court orders that:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development Consent is granted for Development Application DA23/0352 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy with strata subdivision at 123 Nicholson Parade Cronulla in the terms set out in Annexure A.
[2]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 30 July 2024