Petesic v Northern Beaches Council

Resolution of contentions

1. The Parties provided submissions in relation to how the contentions in the appeal had been resolved, and the Court was assisted in its consideration of the Parties submissions by the evidence of the Parties' expert planners, Mr Greg Boston for the Applicant and Ms Kerry Gordon for the Respondent.

Is the Applicant's proposed floor space ratio (FSR) within the Proposed Development acceptable?

1. Pursuant to the provisions of cl 4.4 of MLEP, the Subject Site is subject to a FSR development standard of 0.45:1 and the Proposed Development has a FSR of 0.54:1, representing an exceedance of the FSR standard by 185.65% or 20.39%.
2. The Applicant had provided a written request, prepared pursuant to the provisions of cl 4.6 of MLEP, to vary the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of MLEP. The Parties submitted that the written request, drafted by Boston Blythe Fleming Town Planners, was well found.
3. The Applicant's written request stated that: 1. as required under cl 4.6(3)(a) of MLEP compliance with the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of MLEP was unnecessary in the circumstances of this appeal because, citing the first of the pathways established by Preston CJ in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827, the objectives of the standard are achieved by the Proposed Development notwithstanding the exceedance of the FSR standard, on the following basis; 1. in relation to the standard's first objective, the Proposed Development would ensure the bulk and scale of development is consistent with the existing and desired streetscape character because: 1. the existing streetscape character, development in the vicinity of the site is characterised by one, two and three storey detached style dwellings with a two/three storey seniors housing development located directly opposite the Subject Site; 2. notwithstanding that SEPP HSPD anticipates a particular building form that meets the requirements of that SEPP, such building form should, nevertheless, be appropriately articulated and should include landscaping as an integrated component so as to achieve the desired streetscape character: 3. the Proposed Development complies with the maximum 8m building height development standard applicable to development on the Subject Site under the provisions of SEPP HSPD; and 4. the Proposed Development complies with the maximum two storey built form control, and with the minimum 30% landscaped area/15% deep soil landscaped area controls, of Manly Development Control Plan 2013 (MDCP), noting in particular that 39.6% of the site area would be provided for deep soil landscaping; 5. the FSR non-compliance arises from the design and floor space distribution efficiencies achieved through the consolidation of two allotments having dual street frontage. This allows additional floor space to be accommodated in the central portion of the consolidated allotment and at first floor level adjacent to Ross Street where it is distributed in a manner that does not, in any significant or unacceptable manner, contribute to perceive building bulk and where it will not give rise to unacceptable streetscape or residential amenity consequences; 6. based on the above, the bulk and scale of the Proposed Development is consistent with both the existing and desired streetscape character of both Ponsonby Parade and Ross Street such that the form, massing, landscaping and streetscape presentation of the development to both street frontages reflects the established subdivision pattern, built form and landscape rhythm in its streetscape context; and 7. the built form and landscape outcomes of the Proposed Development facilitates the development's co-existence in harmony with surrounding development; 1. in relation to the standard's second objective, the Proposed Development would have a building density and bulk in relation to site area such that it would ensure important landscape and townscape features are not obscured, because: 1. the Proposed Development complies with the required landscaped area and deep soil landscape controls as expressed as a percentage of site area within SEPP HSPD; and 2. view and view line analyses prepared by the Applicant have confirmed that the development would not obscure any important landscape or townscape features; 1. in relation to the standard's third objective, the Proposed Development maintains an appropriate visual relationship between new development and the existing character and landscape of the area, because the Proposed Development, as amended: 1. maintains an appropriate spatial and visual built form relationship within the existing surrounding development for reasons identified above (at [12(1)(a)(vi)]); 2. complies with the site landscape and deep soil landscape provisions of SEPP HSPD; and 3. the landscape regime now proposed by the Applicant in its amended application would complement the existing landscape setting of surrounding development and would be compatible with it because, as already noted, it reflects the landscape rhythm in its streetscape context; 1. in relation to the standard's fourth objective, the Proposed Development has minimised any potential adverse environmental impacts on the use or enjoyment of adjoining land and the public domain. A detailed view analysis undertaken by the Applicant has confirmed, to my satisfaction, that potential impacts on views, privacy, solar access and visual amenity have been mitigated through the thoughtful design of the Proposed Development; 2. the fifth objective of the standard is not relevant to the Proposed Development as its relates to proposed business uses of the Subject Site, and the Proposed Development does not include any such uses; 1. as required under subcl 4.6(3)(b) of MLEP, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR development standard because: 1. design and floor space distribution efficiencies are achieved through the consolidation of two allotments, and 2. the dual site frontages, along with the lot consolidation, provide greater side boundary setbacks than required through strict compliance with the applicable side boundary setback controls; and 3. the additional floor space is able to be accommodated in the central portion of the consolidated allotment and at first floor level adjacent to Ross Street where: 1. it can be distributed in a manner such that it does not contribute to the perceived building bulk; and 2. it will not give rise to unacceptable streetscape, residential amenity or environmental consequences. 1. the Proposed Development would achieve of aims of SEPP HSPD, noting that: 1. SEPP HSPD aims to increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability and the North District Plan prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission indicates that there will be a 47% increase in the number of people aged 65 years and older in the next 15 years. Therefore, the Proposed Development will meet a clear and increasing demand for seniors housing on the Northern Beaches enabling existing residents to age in place; 2. SEPP HSPD also aims to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and support the good design of housing for seniors; and the Proposed Development satisfies the development criteria and standards specified in SEPP HSPD including the provisions of cl 50(b) concerning density and scale standard, which prescribe a threshold FSR of 0.5:1 and so SEPP HSPD anticipates development with an FSR exceeding 0.5:1 where the design principles at cl 33 - 39 of SEPP HSPD are satisfied; and 3. the Proposed Development satisfies the Design Principles at cl 33 - 39 within Pt 3 Div 2 of SEPP HSPD, notwithstanding the FSR variation proposed by the Applicant; 1. as required under subcl 4.6(4)(a)(ii) of MLEP, the Proposed Development would be in the public interest because: 1. it has adequately addressed the matters in cl 4.6(3) of MLEP; and 2. it is consistent with: 1. the objectives of the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of MLEP, which has been demonstrated, to my satisfaction, above at [12(1)], and for reasons stated, which I adopt; 2. the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the Proposed Development is to be carried out, because it will provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment, noting that seniors housing is permissible within the R2 zoning of the Subject Site pursuant to the provisions of SEPP HSPD; and 3. the Applicant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the design of the Proposed Development, including its form and landscaping, are compatible with the character of the local area including in relation to the R2 zone in which the Subject Site is located.
4. Having considered the Applicant's written request, and the submissions of the Parties, I am satisfied that the Applicant's written request to vary the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 in MLEP is well founded for the reasons contained within the request and noted above at [12], which I adopt.

Is the bulk and scale of the Proposed Development acceptable?

1. The Respondent had contended that the bulk and scale of the Proposed Development was not acceptable on the basis of: 1. its exceedance of the FSR development standard; and 2. the incompatibility of the Proposed Development (as originally proposed) with the streetscape of the local area which is residential in nature.
2. I have already found the Applicant's written request to vary the FSR development standard in MLEP is well founded (see above at [13]) for reasons also provided above (at [12]) and the FSR of the Proposed Development is acceptable.
3. My consideration of the Applicant's written request included consideration of the compatibility of the Proposed Development with the streetscape of the area which is the FSR standard's first objective, and I have agreed that the Proposed Development would ensure the bulk and scale of development is consistent with the existing and desired streetscape character for reasons provided above (at [12(1)(a)]).
4. Given my conclusions above (at [15] and [16]), I am satisfied that, consistent with the agreed submissions of the Parties, the bulk and scale of the Proposed Development is acceptable.

Are the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on adjoining properties in relation to view loss, overshadowing and privacy acceptable?

1. The Respondent had contended that the Proposed Development would have potential impacts on adjoining properties in relation to view loss, overshadowing and privacy.
2. The Parties, relying on the agreements of their expert planners, had submitted that the Applicant's amended plans had resolved this contention and the potential impacts of the Proposed Development had been mitigated including through the amended location of trees proposed for planting on the Subject Site and which has retained the view corridors enjoyed by residents of adjoining developments.
3. The Parties' expert planners provided oral testimony at the hearing that confirmed that they did not support a submission made by one of the resident objectors that a pine tree at the rear of the Subject Site should be removed to enhance ocean views enjoyed by those residents though the Subject Site. They recommended that the pine tree in question be retained consistent with the Applicant's amended landscape plan.
4. The expert planners also opined, and the Parties agreed, that conditions should be imposed with the grant of any consent to the Proposed Development to further protect the privacy of neighbours resident on properties to the east of the Subject Site. Their recommended conditions would require: 1. an extension to the length of a privacy screen on the rear first storey balcony of the Proposed Development; and 2. limit the movement of people on the first storey pathway running along the eastern side of the Proposed Development to ensure that the pathway can only be used for maintenance purposes.
5. Having considered the above, I am satisfied that: 1. the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on adjoining properties in relation to view loss, overshadowing and privacy have been mitigated through the Applicant's amended plans, and through the imposition of the conditions recommended by the Parties' expert planners; and 2. the contention concerning the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on adjoining properties in relation to view loss, overshadowing and privacy has been resolved.

Does the design of the Proposed Development provide an acceptable level of amenity to its future occupants in relation to the provision of solar access, potential overlooking of adjoining properties and certain design principles within the Seniors Living Policy?

1. As noted above, the Applicant's Development Application is made pursuant to the provisions of SEPP HSPD, and it is subject to the design requirement provisions of Pt 3 of that SEPP.
2. The Parties submitted, and their expert planners confirmed, that the Applicant's Development Application, as amended, satisfied the provisions of: 1. clause 30 of SEPP HSPD in relation to site analysis; 2. clause 33, in relation top neighbourhood amenity and landscaping, as previously noted above (at [19] to [22]); 3. clause 34 in relation to visual and acoustic privacy, including in relation to matters identified as having been resolved (see above at [18] to [22]); 4. clauses 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 concerning solar access and design for climate, stormwater, crime prevention, accessibility and waste management, as confirmed by the Applicant's amended plans;
3. On the basis of the evidence above (at [24]), the Parties submitted, and I am satisfied, that as required under the provisions of cl 32 of SEPP HSPD, the Proposed Development, as amended, demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the design principles in cll 33 to 39 of the SEPP.

SEPP HSPD cl 40(4)c) concerning the height of a seniors living development in zones in which residential flat buildings are not permitted.

1. Clause 40(1) of SEPP HSPD requires that a consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to Ch 3 in relation to seniors housing unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in cl 40.
2. The Parties agreed that the Proposed Development is compliant with the provisions of subcll 40(2) and 40(3), concerning site size and site frontage respectively.
3. The provisions of subcl 40(4) of SEPP HSPD require that: 1. the height of all buildings in the Proposed Development must be 8m or less, and the Proposed Development, as amended, is compliant with this requirement; 2. any building that is adjacent to a boundary of the Subject Site must be not more than two storeys in height, and the Proposed Development, as amended, is compliant with that requirement; and 3. any building located in the rear 25% are of the Subject Site must not exceed one storey in height and the Subject Site has a dual frontage to both Ponsonby Parade and Ross Street, and therefore has no rear boundary in the usual manner that such an area would be identified.
4. Notwithstanding the observation made above (at [28(3)]), the Applicant has provided a written request, prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners pursuant to the provisions of cl 4.6 of MLEP, and dated 4 April 2022, that seeks to vary the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD.
5. The Applicant's written request notes that the decision of Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118 provides guidance in respect of the operation of cl 4.6 subject to the clarification by the NSW Court of Appeal in RebelMH Neutral Bay Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [2019] NSWCA 130 at [1], [4] & [51] where the Court confirmed that properly construed, a consent authority has to be satisfied that an applicant's written request has in fact demonstrated the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3).
6. The written request has identified the rear 25% of the Subject Site for the purposes of the cl 4.6 request is that 25% portion of the site nearest to Ross Street on the basis that the primary frontage of the Proposed Development is on Ponsonby Parade. This arrangement is illustrated in the following figure extracted from the Applicant's written request which identifies that portion of the Proposed Development falling within the rear 25% of the site.
7. The two storey elements of the Proposed Development located within the rear 25% of the Subject Site are illustrated in the following figure, also extracted from the Applicant's written request to vary the cl 40(4)(c) development standard.
8. The Applicant's written request notes that: 1. clause 40(4) of SEPP HSPD does not contain any associated objectives; but 2. the implicit objective was considered by the Court in the matter of Manderrah Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1196 where the implicit objectives were considered by Tuor C who concluded (at [70] of that judgment) the following: "70 The primary objective of cl 40(4)(c) is to limit the bulk and scale of a building to protect the amenity of the rear of adjoining properties. Placing built form into the rear of a property which generally forms part of its open space and adjoins the open space of other properties to the side and rear can have significant impacts on amenity not only from loss of solar access, privacy and views but also from the presence of increased or new building bulk and the removal of landscaping."
9. The Applicant's written request also noted that: 1. the conclusion reached by Tuor C has been adopted more recently by Dickson C in her judgment in the matter of Jigari Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1568; and 2. given the consistency in the approach adopted by the Court to determining the objectives for the development standard in cl 40(4) of SEPP HSPD, the implied objective adopted by Tuor C and Dickson C in the above matters should been adopted in relation to the Applicant's written request.
10. The Applicant's written request stated that: 1. as required under subcl 4.6(3)(a) of MLEP compliance with the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD was unnecessary in the circumstances of this appeal because, citing the first of the pathways established by Preston CJ in Wehbe, the objective of the standard is achieved by the Proposed Development, as amended, notwithstanding the exceedance of the standard, because: 1. having regard to the implicit objective of the standard (see above (at [33(2)]), the Proposed Development would not have any significant impact on amenity including from loss of solar access, privacy and views as well as from the presence of increased or new building bulk and the removal of landscaping, for reasons provided within the Applicant's written request, which I adopt; and 2. the proposed building form, which does not comply with the height of building standard as it relates to the rear 25% area of the site, will achieve the objectives of the standard to at least an equal degree as would be the case with a development that complied with the standard; 1. as required under subcl 4.6(3)(b) of MLEP, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD because: 1. the height and floor space distribution efficiencies achieved through the consolidation of two allotments having dual street frontage facilitate: 1. greater side boundary setbacks than those required through strict compliance with the applicable side boundary setback control; and 2. additional floor space is able to be accommodated in the central portion of the consolidated allotment and at first floor level adjacent to Ross Street where it can be distributed in a manner whereby it does not in any significant or unacceptable manner contribute to perceive building bulk and where it will not give rise to unacceptable streetscape, residential amenity or environmental consequences. 1. the standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD does not anticipate the rear boundary of a site also constituting a secondary frontage, and 1. in relation to the Proposed Development, the Subject Site's secondary frontage, is the primary frontage for residential developments on the opposite side of Ross Street; and 2. the associated streetscape on the opposite site of Ross Street is characterised by two and three storey residential development, including a three storey seniors housing development located directly opposite the Subject Site; and 1. the requested variation to the standard in cl 40(4)(c) would facilitate the provision of additional bedrooms and living room floor space to apartments 8 and 9 in the Proposed Development, as amended, which in turn will facilitate the development's responsiveness to the aims of SEPP HSPD. 1. as required under subcl 4.6(4)(a)(ii), the Proposed Development would be in the public interest because: 1. it has adequately addressed the matters in cl 4.6(3); and 2. it is consistent with: 1. the objectives of the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD, which it is, and which has been demonstrated to my satisfaction for reasons provided above at [12(1)]; and 2. the objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the Proposed Development is to be carried out, which it is because it will provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment, noting that seniors housing is permissible within the R2 zone of the Subject Site pursuant to the provisions of SEPP HSPD; and 3. the Applicant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the design of the Proposed Development, including its form and landscaping, are compatible with the character of the local area including in relation to the R2 zone in which the Subject Site is located.
11. Having considered the Applicant's written request, and the submissions of the Parties, I am satisfied that the Applicant's written request to vary the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of SEPP HSPD is well founded for the reasons contained within the request and noted above at [35], which I adopt.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards)

1. Clause 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) (SEPP R&H) (formerly a provision of cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land) provides, inter alia, as follows: "(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless - (a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and (b) 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 (c) 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. (2) Before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subsection (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines."
2. The Parties have advised, and I am satisfied, that the historic use of the Subject Site has been for residential purposes, and there is no record of contamination materials being present on the Subject Site.
3. As the Proposed Development, as amended, will continue to be for a residential use, and no change of use is proposed, I am satisfied that the provisions of cl 4.6 of SEPP R&H (formerly a provision of cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land) have been satisfied.

Location and site access to facilities

1. Clause 26(1) of SEPP HSPD concerns location and site access to facilities and provides as follows: "A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to: (a) shops, banks and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and (b) community services and recreation facilities, and (c) the practice of a general medical practitioner."
2. Subclause 26(2)(b) relevantly provides that: (2) Access complies with this clause if: ….. (b) in the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area within the Greater Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area) --there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development-- (i) that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway, and (ii) that will take those residents to a place that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1), and (iii) that is available both to and from the proposed development at least once between 8am and 12pm per day and at least once between 12pm and 6pm each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive), and the gradient along the pathway from the site to the public transport services (and from the public transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) complies with subclause (3), or …"
3. Subclause 26(3) further provides that: "(3) For the purposes of subclause (2) (b) and (c), the overall average gradient along a pathway from the site of the proposed development to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) is to be no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable-- (i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time, (ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time, (iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time."
4. The Applicant has provided written evidence that the Proposed Development is located such that the locations of bus stops in the vicinity of the development satisfy the requirements of subcl 26(2) of SEPP HSPD, and that the bus routes concerned, specifically the Route 145 bus, operate with the availability identified in subcl 26(2)(iii) to take passengers to and from the facilities identified in subcl 26(1) of the SEPP.
5. Further, the Parties have agreed that, should the Proposed Development, be the subject of a grant of consent, a condition should be imposed (proposed draft condition 15) that will require the construction of a pathway from the Proposed Development to the relevant bus stops such the path of travel will satisfy the provisions of subcl 36(3) of SEPP HSPD. This condition has been included in the Parties' agreed draft conditions of consent as draft condition 15.
6. On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the contention concerning access to facilities is resolved, and the provisions of cl 26 of SEPP HSPD are satisfied.

Notifications and objector submissions

1. Pursuant to the provisions of (MDCP), the Proposed Development, and amendments to the Applicant's plans, were placed on public exhibition by the Respondent as follows: 1. between 22 January and 5 February 2021, the Proposed Development as originally lodged was notified, and 29 submissions were received in response to those plans; 2. between 28 April and 12 May 2021, the Applicant's amended plans were notified and 13 submissions were received in response to those amended plans; 3. between 1 and 15 June 2021, the Applicant's further amended plans and 14 submissions were received in response to those further amended plans; 4. on 24 November 2021, the Applicant's "without prejudice" amended plans were notified to resident objectors and 10 submissions were received in response to those plans; and 5. on 23 March 2022, the Applicant's amended development application, included further amended plans, was notified to resident objectors.
2. The Parties confirmed that the residents' concerns largely related to bulk, scale, overshadowing, view loss, parking and privacy, and they submitted that the Applicant's amendments to the Proposed Development had resulted in reductions in potential view loss impacts and had reduced potential overshadowing impacts. They further agreed that the residents' concerns in relation to privacy had been resolved.
3. At the hearing, the Parties tendered written submissions, as well as an agreed summary of oral submissions made by the following resident objectors during the site view: 1. Ms Ann Hunt, a resident of Ross Street, with a view overlooking the Subject Site; 2. Mr James O'Brien, a resident of Sydney Road; 3. Ms Deidre Hamblett, a resident of Ponsonby Parade; 4. Ms Judith Meyer, also a resident of Ross Street, with a view overlooking the Subject Site; 5. Mr Steven Seretis, on behalf of his mother, a resident of Ponsonby Parade; 6. Ms Anne Warren, a resident of Ponsonby Parade;
4. The matters of concern identified by the resident objectors in their submissions included: 1. the acceptability of the design of the Proposed Development including its streetscape presentation and compatibility with the character of the local area; 2. the height and setbacks of the Proposed Development; 3. the adequacy of pedestrian access and safety mitigation measures within the Proposed Development; 4. the acceptability of potential solar access, overshadowing, view loss and privacy impacts of the Proposed Development; 5. the potential impact of the proposed Development on certain on trees.
5. I have reviewed the objector submissions, and I am satisfied that the Applicant's amended plans are responsive to matters raised by objectors, including in the manner submitted by the Parties, and identified above (at [47]).

Conditions

1. The Parties' have confirmed that all conditions to be imposed with the grant of consent have been agreed and they advise that the conditions of consent are lawful having regard to the provisions of ss 4.16 and 4.17 of the EP&A Act and relevant legal principles as they, inter alia, are responsive to the contentions raised by Council and to the evidence of the experts and residents.

Conclusions

1. I am satisfied that the provisions of cl 4.15(1) of the EP&A Act have been satisfied.
2. As all contentions in this appeal are resolved, and all jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, the Court is able to make final orders to dispose of the appeal.

Orders

1. The Court orders: 1. the Applicant's written request prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming pursuant to cl 4.6 of Manly Local Environmental Plan (MLEP) to vary the FSR development standard in cl 4.4 of MLEP is upheld; 2. the Applicant's written request prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming pursuant to cl 4.6 of MLEP to vary the development standard in cl 40(4)(c) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP HSPD), concerning the height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted is upheld; 3. the appeal is upheld; 4. Development Application DA2021/0008 for the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a seniors housing development and other related works at 12-14 Ponsonby Parade, Seaforth, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure 'A' to this judgment. 5. the exhibits are returned, except exhibits A, D and 1 which are retained …………………………..

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 May 2022