//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2024] NSWLEC 1021
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2024-01-19
Original judgment source is linked above.
JUDGMENT
Is the development substantially the same: s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act 1. After a comparison, I am satisfied that the 2018 consent, as proposed to be modified by this Modification Application, is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted. There is no 'radical' change to the development. The changes proposed do not substantially change the building footprint or massing. The Modification Application does not make transformative changes in the building height or gross floor area (GFA). The fundamental characteristics of the development, a boarding house over basement carparking with retail space, remain. I find that s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act is satisfied.
Consultation with concurrence authorities: s 4.55(2)(b) of the EPA Act 1. The development application required concurrence from Water NSW, whose conditions were incorporated into the 2018 consent. The Modification Application was referred to Water NSW who issued updated general terms of approval on 8 January 2024. The conditions of consent nominated by Water NSW have been incorporated into the annexed conditions.
Notification: s 4.55(2)(c) and s 4.55(d) of the EPA Act 1. The Modification Application was notified in accordance with the EPA Regulation and the requirements of the Respondent's Community Participation Plan, satisfying s 4.55(2)(c) of the EPA Act. I am satisfied that the matters raised in submissions have been considered as required by s 4.55(2)(d) of the EPA Act and, where appropriate, have resulted in amendments or the imposition of conditions.
Matters at s 4.15 of the EPA Act: s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act 1. Under s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act, the consent authority must also take into consideration of two matters. Firstly, such of the matters referred to in s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act that are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. Secondly, the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified. 2. With the assistance of the agreed jurisdictional note filed by the parties, I conclude, none of the matters referred to in s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act that are of relevance to the development the subject of the application precludes the approval of the Modification Application for the reasons set out below: 1. Pursuant to Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 (LEP 2021), the site is zoned MU1 Mixed use and development for the purpose of a boarding house is permitted with consent in the zone. In determining the development application, I have given consideration to the objectives of the zone. 2. Pursuant to cl 4.4 of LEP 2021, the maximum permissible floor space ratio is 3:1. The modification application seeks an increase in the gross floor area, although the development maintains a similar bulk and scale to the 2018 consent. As the Modification Application is made pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the EPA Act, a written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 is not required. 3. The Modification Application includes additional structural engineering, core engineering and geotechnical information. Having considered these I accept the agreement of the parties that the matters at cl 6.2(3) of LEP 2021 have been considered. 4. The Modification Application includes updated stormwater plans which have been coordinated with the architectural plans. I accept the agreed position of the parties that to the extent that it applies as a consideration, the development as modified will continue to be consistent with the requirements of cl 6.4(3) of LEP 2021. 5. The parties agree, and I accept that, in respect of cl 6.9 Active street frontages, the Modification Application continues to activate the street frontage and there is no reduction in activation that will result from the amendment. 6. Pursuant to s 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, contamination and remediation was considered as part of the determination of the development application. No intervening events would warrant new consideration and the site remains suitable for the proposed use. 7. An amended BASIX certificate has been prepared, addressing the modified development as required by State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. 8. Section 2.119 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP TI) applies to the application as Bay Street is a classified road. However, vehicular access is not made available from Bay Street, satisfying this clause. 9. Section 2.120 of SEPP TI also applies as the Modification Application is a development involving residential accommodation that is on land adjacent to a road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles (Bay Street). The development is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration. 10. Section 2.120(3) requires that for development involving residential accommodation, the consent authority is required to be satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following noise (LAeq) levels are not exceeded: (a) in any bedroom in the residential accommodation - 35 dB(A) at any time between 10pm and 7 am, (b) anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) - 40 dB(A) at any time. 1. The Modification Application retains the requirement for the development to be constructed in a manner consistent with the Acoustic Report that was submitted with the 2018 Consent. That report specifies appropriate construction standards to achieve the required sound levels. The proposal is acceptable with regard to the requirements of the SEPP TI. 2. Whilst the 2018 consent was approved under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing) apply to the modification application. The provisions of Pt 2 Div 2 of SEPP Housing apply. Against the relevant provisions, the modification application: 1. Is a permissible use: s 23 of SEPP Housing. 2. Requires a variation to the floor space ratio: s 24(2)(a)(ii) SEPP Housing. The parties agree, and I accept, that the increase in GFA mainly relates to the methodology of calculation of the GFA and that the overall bulk and scale and envelope is substantially the same as the Development Consent. No written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 is required with respect to non-compliance with the FSR development standard (Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 157 [8]-[9]). 3. The primary communal space obtains direct solar access in accordance with s 24(2)(e) of SEPP Housing. 4. That whilst the discretionary standard at s 24(2)(g) of SEPP Housing is not met, there are multiple communal spaces that have a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and the provision of communal space and its amenity has been increased and improved in the modification application. 5. Does not comply with the provision at s 25(1)(g) of SEPP Housing as the site does not meet the minimum requirement. However, as the application is a modification application the precondition is not required to be satisfied. Further, the site has the benefit of the 2018 consent which the parties agree has not lapsed. 6. In respect of the standards at s 25(2)(a) of SEPP Housing, the parties agree, and I accept, that the character of the development is an improvement from the 2018 consent with a materiality more in keeping with the current style as well as the desired future character of the precinct. 7. In respect of the standards at ss 25(2)(b) and (c) of SEPP Housing, the setbacks are consistent with those approved in the Development Consent and are more substantial for the rear than those required in the Apartment Design Guide. The side setbacks are nil, in accordance with the Council's controls. 1. The parties agree, and I accept, that the modification application is acceptable when regard is had to the provisions of Bayside Development Control Plan 2022 (DCP 2022). Further, the likely impacts of the proposed development are acceptable and the site remains suitable for the proposed development. 2. Both the submissions received from the public and the broader public interest have been considered in the assessment and determination of the development application.
The reasons given by the consent authority: s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act 1. Section 4.55(3) of the EPA Act requires that the consent authority take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority, in this instance the Court, for the grant of the consent. In determining the Modification Application, I have considered the reasons for the grant of consent within proceedings Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1709.
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: 25 January 2024
Consultation with concurrence authorities: s 4.55(2)(b) of the EPA Act
(1) The development application required concurrence from Water NSW, whose conditions were incorporated into the 2018 consent. The Modification Application was referred to Water NSW who issued updated general terms of approval on 8 January 2024. The conditions of consent nominated by Water NSW have been incorporated into the annexed conditions.
Notification: s 4.55(2)(c) and s 4.55(d) of the EPA Act
(1) The Modification Application was notified in accordance with the EPA Regulation and the requirements of the Respondent's Community Participation Plan, satisfying s 4.55(2)(c) of the EPA Act. I am satisfied that the matters raised in submissions have been considered as required by s 4.55(2)(d) of the EPA Act and, where appropriate, have resulted in amendments or the imposition of conditions.
Matters at s 4.15 of the EPA Act: s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act
(1) Under s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act, the consent authority must also take into consideration of two matters. Firstly, such of the matters referred to in s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act that are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. Secondly, the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.
(2) With the assistance of the agreed jurisdictional note filed by the parties, I conclude, none of the matters referred to in s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act that are of relevance to the development the subject of the application precludes the approval of the Modification Application for the reasons set out below:
(a) Pursuant to Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 (LEP 2021), the site is zoned MU1 Mixed use and development for the purpose of a boarding house is permitted with consent in the zone. In determining the development application, I have given consideration to the objectives of the zone.
(b) Pursuant to cl 4.4 of LEP 2021, the maximum permissible floor space ratio is 3:1. The modification application seeks an increase in the gross floor area, although the development maintains a similar bulk and scale to the 2018 consent. As the Modification Application is made pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the EPA Act, a written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 is not required.
(c) The Modification Application includes additional structural engineering, core engineering and geotechnical information. Having considered these I accept the agreement of the parties that the matters at cl 6.2(3) of LEP 2021 have been considered.
(d) The Modification Application includes updated stormwater plans which have been coordinated with the architectural plans. I accept the agreed position of the parties that to the extent that it applies as a consideration, the development as modified will continue to be consistent with the requirements of cl 6.4(3) of LEP 2021.
(e) The parties agree, and I accept that, in respect of cl 6.9 Active street frontages, the Modification Application continues to activate the street frontage and there is no reduction in activation that will result from the amendment.
(f) Pursuant to s 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, contamination and remediation was considered as part of the determination of the development application. No intervening events would warrant new consideration and the site remains suitable for the proposed use.
(g) An amended BASIX certificate has been prepared, addressing the modified development as required by State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.
(h) Section 2.119 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP TI) applies to the application as Bay Street is a classified road. However, vehicular access is not made available from Bay Street, satisfying this clause.
(i) Section 2.120 of SEPP TI also applies as the Modification Application is a development involving residential accommodation that is on land adjacent to a road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles (Bay Street). The development is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration.
(j) Section 2.120(3) requires that for development involving residential accommodation, the consent authority is required to be satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following noise (LAeq) levels are not exceeded:
(a) in any bedroom in the residential accommodation - 35 dB(A) at any time between 10pm and 7 am,
(b) anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) - 40 dB(A) at any time.
(k) The Modification Application retains the requirement for the development to be constructed in a manner consistent with the Acoustic Report that was submitted with the 2018 Consent. That report specifies appropriate construction standards to achieve the required sound levels. The proposal is acceptable with regard to the requirements of the SEPP TI.
(l) Whilst the 2018 consent was approved under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing) apply to the modification application. The provisions of Pt 2 Div 2 of SEPP Housing apply. Against the relevant provisions, the modification application:
(i) Is a permissible use: s 23 of SEPP Housing.
(ii) Requires a variation to the floor space ratio: s 24(2)(a)(ii) SEPP Housing. The parties agree, and I accept, that the increase in GFA mainly relates to the methodology of calculation of the GFA and that the overall bulk and scale and envelope is substantially the same as the Development Consent. No written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 is required with respect to non-compliance with the FSR development standard (Gann & Anor v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 157 [8]-[9]).
(iii) The primary communal space obtains direct solar access in accordance with s 24(2)(e) of SEPP Housing.
(iv) That whilst the discretionary standard at s 24(2)(g) of SEPP Housing is not met, there are multiple communal spaces that have a minimum dimension of 3 metres, and the provision of communal space and its amenity has been increased and improved in the modification application.
(v) Does not comply with the provision at s 25(1)(g) of SEPP Housing as the site does not meet the minimum requirement. However, as the application is a modification application the precondition is not required to be satisfied. Further, the site has the benefit of the 2018 consent which the parties agree has not lapsed.
(vi) In respect of the standards at s 25(2)(a) of SEPP Housing, the parties agree, and I accept, that the character of the development is an improvement from the 2018 consent with a materiality more in keeping with the current style as well as the desired future character of the precinct.
(vii) In respect of the standards at ss 25(2)(b) and (c) of SEPP Housing, the setbacks are consistent with those approved in the Development Consent and are more substantial for the rear than those required in the Apartment Design Guide. The side setbacks are nil, in accordance with the Council's controls.
(m) The parties agree, and I accept, that the modification application is acceptable when regard is had to the provisions of Bayside Development Control Plan 2022 (DCP 2022). Further, the likely impacts of the proposed development are acceptable and the site remains suitable for the proposed development.
(n) Both the submissions received from the public and the broader public interest have been considered in the assessment and determination of the development application.
The reasons given by the consent authority: s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act
(1) Section 4.55(3) of the EPA Act requires that the consent authority take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority, in this instance the Court, for the grant of the consent. In determining the Modification Application, I have considered the reasons for the grant of consent within proceedings Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1709.
(1) Bayside Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed to the amendment of the Modification Application in accordance with the documents listed below, pursuant to s 113 of the EPA Regulation. Further, the Court notes the parties have agreed that the Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments made in the agreed amount of $4,250, to be paid within 7 days of the date of the orders.
Further Schedule of Amendments prepared by JSA Studio
Geotechnical Report prepared by Aargus dated 9 October 2023
Operational Plan of management prepared by Parker Logan Property dated 3 November 2023
(1) Consent is granted to Modification Application MDA2023/90.
(2) Development consent DA-2017/194, granted by the Land and Environment Court on 31 January 2018, is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent DA-2017/194, as modified by the Court, is Annexure B.
Rye 10 Pty Ltd
Bayside Council