//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2021] NSWLEC 1615
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2021-05-18
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment
The Proposed Development
Notifications and objector submissions
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012
Waverley Development Control Plan
Contentions
Is the Applicant's written request to vary the HoB development standard well founded?
Is Demolition of the Existing Dwellings on the Subject Site Acceptable?
Is the Proposed Building Appropriate in the HCA?
Has the Proposed Development responded adequately to the general design and town planning concerns identified in the contentions?
Void area Level 01 1. the Applicant's proposed design includes a void area on level 01 within the Proposed Development, which the Respondent said contributes to the bulk and scale of the building, and has limited utility. In relation to this: 1. the Respondent in closing stated that the void is a result of excavation required to provide light into an area located below ground level, and that Mr Adamson's assessment of this feature was contained within the joint expert report of the planners where he had addressed other design related contentions; 2. Mr Adamson had stated that the area of the void would not receive adequate solar access and would present potential future management issues with respect to drainage and dampness; 3. the Applicant submitted that: 1. to the extent that Mr Adamson had identified concerns in relation to the void these related to the extent of excavation proposed by the Applicant; 2. the Respondent had not raised any contention in relation to the provisions of cl 6.2 of WLEP which concern, and provide controls in relation to excavation; and 3. the design of the Proposed Development, including the void referred to by the Respondent in its contention, had been adequately addressed by Mr Darroch in his written evidence within the joint expert report prepared with Mr Adamson, and in his oral evidence which was consistent with opinions provided within the joint expert report; 1. Mr Darroch had said within his written evidence in the joint expert report that the void provided solar access to west facing highlight windows, and so improved amenity to the communal space within wing A of the Proposed Development, without giving rise to any amenity impacts; 2. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the expert planners, I am satisfied that the design of level 0I within the Proposed Development, including the proposed void space, is acceptable for reasons provided by Mr Darroch in relation to the provision of solar access to an important communal space within the Proposed Development (see above at [(d)]), which I adopt;
Materials and finishes (2) the materials and finishes proposed for the Proposed Development in relation to which: 1. the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated consistency with the heritage character of the area; 2. the Applicant submitted that the modulated façade of the Proposed Development represented an improvement to the streetscape presentation containing the residential flat buildings located on either side of the Subject Site; 3. Mr Darroch said that: 1. the finish and materials of the Proposed Development related to the materials in the current building on the Subject Site, including the use of timber batons that would allow light to penetrate into the site; 2. while the presentation of wings A and C was different to that of wing B, the streetscape presentation was, by intent, contemporary, and it was not dissimilar to other streetscape presentations of developments found in the HCA. He said that these contained diverse examples of contemporary structures in the streetscape, including a variety of screening treatments; 3. while he agreed with the Respondent that the Proposed Development would be prominent in the streetscape, it was his opinion that it would not draw attention to itself; 1. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the experts I am satisfied that: 1. the Applicant's proposed materials and finishes for the Proposed Development are acceptable having regard to the character of the local area, noting that this area contains buildings of eclectic design, including buildings of a contemporary presentation, houses with presentations reflecting designs of the inter-war period, and post-war period, as well as residential flat buildings reflective of building design of the 1960s and 1970s; 2. as submitted by the Applicant, the presentation of the Proposed Development, including its proposed materials and finishes, would provide an improvement to the streetscape presentation of the Subject Site and adjoining properties presenting to Edward Street; 3. the presentation of the Proposed Development would complement the existing character of the area and would enhance the views along Edward Street including from the public domain.
Substation location 1. the Proposed Development includes an electrical substation, in relation to which: 1. the Applicant has proposed that the substation should be located centrally within the Proposed Development's street presentation to Edward Street, in front of the central wing B of the development; 2. the Respondent had submitted that the substation as proposed was not integrated adequately into the design of the building and said that it had a defensive presentation in the street and added to the visual bulk of the Proposed Development; 3. Mr Darroch said during his oral evidence that: 1. the Applicant had considered a variety of possible locations for the substation during the design process and the central location as proposed was the best that could be identified; 2. the substation could not be moved or setback further into the building as a consequence of numerous constraints including the location of street trees and the location of the proposed access driveway to the east; 3. the substation was not able to be landscaped as any landscaping would restrict the access required for maintenance of the facility; 4. the design of the proposed screen around the substation was an appropriate response to the streetscape presentation of the Proposed Development; 1. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the experts on this subject, I am satisfied that the proposed location, and presentation in the streetscape, of the substation is acceptable for reasons provided by Mr Darroch, (above at [(c)]) which I adopt; 2. I am further satisfied that: 1. having assessed that the location of the proposed substation is acceptable in relation to streetscape presentation, I am also satisfied that that the Applicant's landscape plans of the front setback area are compatible with the streetscape in which the Proposed Development is located, which includes its location in Edward Street between two residential flat buildings; and 2. as the Applicant's landscape plans of the front setback are compatible with the streetscape in which the Proposed Development is located, the Proposed Development has met the standard in cl 29(2)b) of SEPP ARH, and cannot be refused for reasons associated with the landscape presentation in the streetscape;
Acoustic impacts (2) the use of the proposed common open space may give rise to excessive noise that could impact on the acoustic amenity of neighbours, in relation to which: 1. the Respondent said that: 1. the extent of glazing on side elevations and the placement of balconies, have the potential to give rise to acoustic impacts on adjacent properties; 2. the location of the external communal open space area on the ground floor was alleged to give rise to potential noise impacts upon neighbours; 3. the communal space would need to be restricted to use by no more than 20 people, and with no more than 10 of these speaking at any one time, in order for the development to comply with applicable noise criteria; 4. Mr Darroch had opined that compliance with the applicable noise criteria would be achieved through the manager's oversight of the space and its use, which was facilitated by the location of the Manager's Room in close proximity to the communal space, as confirmed within the Applicant's amended plans; 5. notwithstanding that Mr Adamson had accepted Mr Darroch's opinion concerning the approach to management of potential noise impacts, compliance with applicable noise criteria though an improved design, rather than through management intervention, should be preferred; 6. as it would not be possible, through the imposition of a condition of consent, to require an amended design to ensure these potential noise impacts, the application should be refused. 1. the Applicant submitted that: 1. amendments to its plans have resolved this contention; 2. the side setbacks of the Proposed Development were compliant with the relevant controls in WDCP, and were sufficient to mitigate any potential noise impacts from boarding rooms on adjacent properties; 3. the communal space is setback more than 6m from any adjoining property; 4. the location of the communal open space immediately adjacent to the Manager's Room would ensure that its use would be the subject of strict control, consistent with the Applicant's proposed plan of management; 5. as identified by Mr Darroch in his oral evidence at the hearing, neighbours would be provided with contact details for the manager should they required specific remedial action to be taken in relation to use of the communal area and noise arising therefrom; 6. the Court would note the advice of Mr Adamson that he did not have expertise in acoustics and did not seek to give evidence in relation to compliance of the Proposed Development with applicable noise criteria; 1. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the experts, I am satisfied that: 1. the Applicant's proposals for management of potential noise impacts from the use of the communal open space are reasonable; 2. consistent with the evidence of Mr Darroch and the submissions of the Applicant, the location of the Manager's Room adjacent to the communal space will assist in assuring that noise levels in the communal space are managed to achieve compliance; 3. the Applicant's plan of management, which would be provided to potential future residents would ensure that residents are made aware of the approved basis for use of the communal space; 4. the Respondent's contentions concerning potential noise impacts are not a reason for refusal of the Applicant's Proposed Development;
Visual privacy (3) potential visual privacy impacts, which the Respondent said was a concern in relation to both the residence adjoining to the south of the Subject Site at 58 Durham Street, and the residential flat building to the west, and in relation to which: 1. the Responded submitted that: 1. the extent of glazing on side elevations, and the placement of balconies, had the potential to give rise to visual impacts; 2. the quantum of self-contained rooms with windows oriented to side boundaries necessitated the incorporation of effective privacy measure within the Proposed Development; 3. the Proposed Development should not rely on landscaping to achieve effective visual privacy outcomes; 4. the Applicant should be required, though the imposition of a condition of consent, to install fixed screens angled at 30 degrees in a northerly direction as proposed by Mr Adamson within his joint expert report prepared with Mr Darroch; 1. the Applicant said that: 1. the Respondent raises no contentions concerning potential impacts relating to loss of views, bulk and scale or overshadowing; and 2. its proposals for sliding screens were an appropriate design response to the need to assure visual privacy providing residents with flexibility in the management of solar access to their rooms; 1. Mr Adamson confirmed at the hearing that, in his opinion, the Applicant should be required to install fixed screens with a 30 degree angle to the north in order to assure visual privacy between adjoining window and to retain adequate solar access; 2. Mr Darroch said in his oral evidence at the hearing that: 1. he agreed with the Respondent that the Proposed Development included a significant number of units that were oriented towards the side boundaries of the Subject Site; 2. the principal visual privacy concerns, in his opinion, related to the west side of the Proposed Development; 3. the visual privacy of neighbours to, and residents of, the Proposed Development would be assured through buildings separations of up to 6m, together with the installation of vegetation in planters and the use of sliding screens; 1. having considered the evidence of the experts and the submissions of the Parties, I have concluded that: 1. I prefer the evidence of Mr Adamson and agree with him that, given the large number of windows oriented to the side boundaries of the Subject Site, the visual privacy of residents in adjoining developments is most appropriately assured through requiring that privacy screens on the side of the Proposed Development be fixed, with their blades set at a 30 degree angle to the north; 2. as proposed by Mr Adamson, any grant of consent should include the imposition of a condition requiring that the Applicant install fixed screens to side facing windows in the proposed Development, and that these screens should include blades angled to 30 degrees to the north;
Solar access (4) the potential solar access impacts of the Proposed Development on neighbouring properties, in relation to which the expert planners confirmed during the hearing that the Proposed Development would not give rise to unreasonable solar access impacts on adjoining properties, notably the properties at 23 Castlefield Street and 58 Denham Street; (5) the provision of solar access within the Proposed Development, in relation to which: 1. Mr Darroch stated that: 1. clause 29(2)(c) of SEPP ARH provides in relation to solar access that consent cannot be refused for a boarding house development in circumstances where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter; 2. the Proposed Development provides for up to 5 hours solar access to at least one of its communal living rooms; 3. there is no other requirement under the provisions of SEPP ARH for the provision of solar access to boarding rooms; 4. the Proposed Development provides reasonable levels of solar access to boarding rooms and communal areas; 5. the Applicant's view from the sun analyses had demonstrated that the private courtyards would receive two hours of sunlight between 10:30am and 12:30pm at mid-winter, and he did not agree with Mr Adamson that these courtyards and boarding rooms would be adversely impacted by a lack of sunlight, nor by drainage and dampness issues; and 6. while he agreed that the sun would not strike the floor of the western courtyards in the Proposed Development, that space would receive adequate solar access, and the level of solar access provided to this space would not provide a basis for refusal of the Applicant's Proposed Development; 1. Mr Adamson said that, in his opinion, courtyards areas positioned below natural ground level would have potential drainage problems post construction and no sunlight would hit the floor of that area to assist with its drying; 2. the Respondent in closing submitted that: 1. notwithstanding the provisions of cl 29(2)(c) of SEPP ARH, the Court would not be prevented from undertaking a merit assessment of the solar access amenity of what it had described as below ground boarding rooms and courtyards; 2. in response to a question put to Mr Darroch, he was unable to confirm whether the height of courtyard walls had been correctly drawn in one of the Applicant's plans, noting a possible inconsistency between the Applicant's plan SK-3303 (a section) and plan SK-8601 (a view from the sun diagram); and 3. the Court would not approve the Proposed Development in circumstances where certain of the Applicant's plans were inconsistent, such that the Applicant could not confirm the extent of solar access provided to the boarding rooms and adjacent courtyards; 1. the Applicant submitted that: 1. there is no requirement under the SEPP ARH standards, nor under other controls applicable to the Proposed Development, for the provision of a minimum amount of solar access to boarding rooms; and 2. notwithstanding what it referred to as "some confusion" over the location of the section illustrated in plan SK-3303, Mr Darroch's evidence concerning the provision of solar access to the courtyards and boarding rooms of relevance remained unchanged from that noted above (at [(a)]); 1. having considered the evidence of the experts and the submissions of the Parties, I have concluded that: 1. I am satisfied that the Proposed Development satisfies the provisions of cl 29(2)(c) of SEPP ARH, and that at least one communal living area within the proposed boarding house will receive at least three hours of solar access at mid-winter; 2. consistent with the evidence of Mr Darroch and the submissions of the Applicant I accept that there is no further provision of SEPP ARH that requires a minimum level of solar access to boarding rooms and adjacent private open space courtyards within the Proposed Development; 3. given that there is no minimum level of solar access required for boarding rooms and adjacent private open space courtyards, the potential inconsistency between the Applicant's plans noted by the Respondent above (at [(c)(i)]) does not form a basis for refusal of the Applicant's proposed Development; 4. I am satisfied, based on the evidence of Mr Darroch which I accept, that the Proposed Development is satisfactory with respect to the provision of solar access to residents of the Proposed Development; 5. notwithstanding the conclusion above at [(iv)], I agree with the Respondent that any plans approved by the Court as part of a consent to the Proposed Development should be consistent and the Applicant should be directed to review, and if necessary amend, its plans SK-3303 and SK-8601 to assure consistency between the plans in relation to the proposed height of courtyard walls;
Excavation (6) the potential impacts arising from proposed excavation, including in relation to stormwater management and the amenity of certain rooms to the west of the Proposed Development, in relation to which: 1. the Respondent submitted that: 1. the proposed excavation is not seen elsewhere in the local area and will be an alien element which is out of character with the local area; 2. the Applicant's had provided insufficient information in relation to the extent of excavation proposed and the amenity of certain boarding rooms said the be located below ground level, and in relation to certain boundary and perimeter walls; 3. the proposed excavation works give rise to adverse amenity impacts within the Proposed Development in relation to communal spaces, boarding rooms and landscaping; 4. on the basis of evidence provided by Mr Adamson, the proposed levels of excavation result in elements of the built form located below natural ground level and this increases the bulk and scale of the development such that it represents a level of development that is beyond the capacity of the Subject Site; 5. the amount of excavation should be reconsidered to ensure that there is a better relationship between the landform and the proposed boarding house building; 1. the Applicant submitted that the Respondent had raised no contention in relation to the provisions of cl 6.2 of WLEP concerning earthworks, and that, based on the evidence of Mr Darroch, the level of excavation is acceptable and does not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts; 2. having considered the submissions of the Parties, the evidence of the planning experts, and mindful of conclusions already reached in this judgment, I am satisfied that: 1. the level of excavation proposed by the Applicant within its Proposed Development is acceptable; 2. the Applicant's proposed levels of excavation will not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts in relation to boarding rooms and landscaping; and 3. the provisions of Part B14 of WDCP concerning excavation have been satisfied by the Applicant's Proposed Development, as amended;
Manager's room (7) the adequacy of the dimensions of the proposed manager's room, in relation to which: 1. the Applicant has proposed that, to remove any doubt, it would accept imposition of a condition as follows to satisfy the provisions of cl 29(2)(d)(ii) of SEPP ARH: "The glazing, including the doorway to the private open space for the managers room, will be moved west and inward by 500mm to ensure that the dimensions of the private open space will be 4m x 2.5m." 1. I agree that this matter can be resolved as proposed by the Applicant, and I adopt its proposal for the imposition of the above condition;
Waste management (8) the acceptability of the design of waste management facilities and proposals for waste collection, in relation to which: 1. in response to evidence provided by the Parties expert planners, the Applicant amended it application so as to: 1. re-allocate a previously proposed car space (car space 9) for the purpose of on-site waste collection within the basement of the Proposed Development; 2. propose the use of a small waste vehicle that could park within the nominated space when collecting waste from the Proposed Development on a twice weekly basis; 3. confirm that the space nominated for use by a small waste collection vehicle could be used at other times for the parking of vehicles associated with trades and other maintenance personnel attending the Subject Site; 1. the Applicant provided a letter from ttpp transport planning, tendered as evidence at the hearing, confirming that: 1. the requirements for manoeuvring and parking of the small waste collection vehicle proposed by the Applicant were consistent with the requirements of B99 vehicle; and 2. the proposed aisle width and parking space dimensions associated with the nominated space (car space 9) were compliant with the requirements under AS2890.1 for access by a B99 vehicle; 1. the Respondent submitted within its written closing submissions that the Court had been provided insufficient information to be satisfied that the proposed waste collection vehicle could enter the basement car park and collect waste while parked in the nominated space (car space 9), and it noted that the following matters required further advice for the purposes of assessing the viability of the Applicant's amended proposals for waste collection: 1. confirmation that basement entry and basement proper provided a minimum clearance of 2.1m throughout the proposed path of travel for the small waste collection vehicle; 2. if the rear of the small waste collection vehicle is required to be lifted in order to collect waste, confirmation that this be accommodated within the height clearance available in the space nominated for waste collection; 3. confirmation that the side mirrors of the small waste collection vehicle included in the width dimension provide for the vehicle by ttpp transport and planning of 1.95m; 4. the method by which the Applicant proposes that the nominated waste collection space would be kept reserved for waste collection; and 5. the frequency required for waste collection, having regard to the capacity of the vehicle; 1. the Respondent had further submitted that it remained concerned that the Applicant's proposals for waste management were unable to be guaranteed given that the vehicle proposed by the Applicant could only be provided by a single private sector service provider; 2. the Applicant in its closing submissions in reply provided the following information in relation to the Respondent's requirements for further information: 1. the Applicant's architect had confirmed that a minimum 2.1m clearance was available for the small waste collection vehicle to access to the basement and throughout the Applicant's nominated path of travel and space proposed for waste collection; 2. the Applicant's waste expert, Mr Rudd of ttpp transport and planning had confirmed that the small waste collection vehicle was able to collect waste within the 2.1m headroom clearance available within the nominated waste collection space; 3. the width of the proposed small waste collection vehicle was 1.7 m, and the swept path available to the vehicle for movement within the basement had been calculated on a 2.1m wide vehicle, and provided a further 300mm clearance beyond the path calculated; 4. the nominated waste collection space could be kept reserved for waste collection through the imposition of a condition requiring installation of a folding and lockable bollard to be managed by the on-site boarding house manager and under management arrangements provided within the Applicant's plan of management for the facility; 1. in response to an invitation from the Court to confirm arrangements in relation to waste management, the Applicant provided additional information from its expert, Mr Rudd, concerning the collection of waste from the Proposed Development and confirming the dimensions of vehicles proposed to be utilised for that purpose; 2. the Respondent, noting the further information provided by the Applicant, made the following further submissions; 1. the proposed biweekly collection is unusual for waste and more so for recycling in a residential development, which are typically weekly for general waste and fortnightly for paper and cardboard bins (blue) and container recycling bins (yellow); 2. the waste collection company proposes to combine all materials into the one collection vehicle for later sorting at a tipping facility which would negatively impact on Waverley Council's landfill diversion targets. 3. while the dimensions of the truck cited to be used for servicing may be able to enter the parking area, the on-site waste collection area must be designed to allow collection vehicles to enter and exit the property in a forward direction and have adequate vehicle clearance; 4. the waste collection vehicle proposed to service the site does not meet the relevant requirements set out in Part 2: Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities (AS 2890.2), per Annexure B1-3 in the Waverley Council Development Control Plan 2012; 5. it is unclear the mechanism by which the bins would be emptied into the vehicle indicated, given the significant weight of 660L waste bins proposed at this development; 6. on-site waste collection is to be accommodated within a basement from a dedicated collection point or loading bay that does not impede pedestrian or vehicle movement within the development. It is unclear how the vehicle can service the development in a safe manner; 7. the use of a private waste collection service and particularly a small vehicle with limited capacity, is not a cost-effective approach, as the small truck volume requires more frequent collection (biweekly). This development is modelled to generate at least 13 x 660L mobile garbage bins (MGB) per week. It is unclear as to whether the vehicle proposed would be able to collect this amount of material twice per week. The proposed small vehicle size also does not allow for a change of use to council's collection service in the future by current or future owners or tenants; 8. no additional SWRMP has been provided to detail waste minimisation practices, indicate where bulky waste storage is located, or to address the comments provided in the previous referral, including all details of the onsite collection; 9. the above matters could be resolved through the imposition of conditions of consent, drafts of which it had provided with its further submissions; 1. the Applicant stated, in response to the Respondent's further submissions that: 1. its proposed waste collection service provider had confirmed that, whilst a 660L bin is larger than a standard residential waste bin, it is not heavy or cumbersome and easily managed by the vehicle proposed for waste collection; 2. its expert traffic engineer had confirmed that the Proposed Development facilitated the ingress and egress of the vehicle proposed to collect waste; 3. in relation to the Respondent's comments concerning bi-weekly collections and costs associated with same, the Proposed Development is not able to be subdivided, would be owned by a single entity and the costs associated with the collection of waste are a consideration for that owner; 4. the Applicant is the current owner and is content to bear costs associated with the proposed method for management and collection of waste; 5. the Applicant would accept imposition of the conditions proposed by the Respondent in respect of waste management including conditions relating to waste minimisation during construction and a condition requiring a covenant to be registered on title to ensure the ongoing operation of the proposed garbage collection methodology. 1. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the Applicant's traffic expert, Mr Rudd, I am satisfied that: 1. the Applicant's proposal for on-site waste collection, as recommended by the Parties' expert planners, is consistent with the provisions of section 1.4.2.1 of WDCP concerning waste collection in relation to multi-residential and mixed use developments; 2. as the Applicant's proposed arrangements for management of waste were amended during the hearing, the Applicant should be required, through the imposition of a condition of consent, to amend its Site Waste and Recycling Management Plan (SWRMP); 3. the Respondent's proposed conditions of consent concerning waste management, which include requirements for the Applicant to amend its SWRMP, should be reflected in any final agreed conditions of consent prepared in relation to the Proposed Development; and 4. the Applicant's proposals for waste management within the Proposed Development, together with the imposition of conditions of consent as proposed by the Respondent, are acceptable and resolve the contention in relation to waste management;
Parking (9) the Applicant has proposed that its boarding house should provide 19 physical car spaces within its basement in relation to which: 1. the proposed car parking configuration includes: 1. eight (8) car spaces are proposed to be included through the use of Klaus Multibase 2072i-180 car stacker system across an area that would otherwise accommodate four (4) car spaces; 2. two (2) car spaces would be allocated as accessible spaces; 3. the allocation of one (1) car space for the use of the boarding house manager in fulfillment of the requirement in cl 29(2)(e)(iii) of SEPP ARH; 4. the proposed use of one (1) space for the purpose of waste collection; 5. the Applicant accepted that one of the spaces could be used as a car share space, as proposed by the Respondent, and which, pursuant to the provisions of section 8.2.2 of Part B8 of WDCP, would replace the demand of up to four (4) car spaces; 6. the Applicant opposed the allocation of one car parking space for visitor parking on the basis that this was inconsistent with Council's policy of reducing parking and discouraging reliance on motor vehicles; 1. the Respondent submitted in closing that: 1. the Proposed Development was required to provide parking for 19 cars for its 37 room boarding house pursuant to the provisions of cl 29(2)(e)(iia) of SEPP ARH, and that was a so-called "must not refuse" standard; 2. the Proposed Development provided 18 spaces on the basis that one of the 19 car space was now proposed to be allocated for use in relation to waste collection; 3. the provisions of WDCP do not establish a control with respect to the provision of parking in a boarding house; 4. the Applicant has not, in its submission, provided evidence that 18 car parking spaces was an appropriate number of spaces for the development; 1. the Applicant noted in its closing submissions that, on the basis of its acceptance of the use of one (1) car space as a car share space, the Proposed Development, as amended, would provide the equivalent of up to 21 car spaces, plus the space proposed for allocation for waste collection, as follows: 1. eight (8) car spaces within the proposed car stacker system; 2. two (2) accessible car spaces; 3. up to four (4) car spaces though the allocation of one (1) space for use as a car share space; 4. one (1) space allocated for use by the manager; and 5. six (6) further car spaces for general use by residents; 1. the Applicant has also provided a letter from its traffic expert, ttpp transport and planning, which states that the proposed spatial arrangements within the basement of the Proposed Development would satisfactorily accommodate the installation of the Applicant's proposed Klaus Multibase 2072i-180 car stacking system; 2. having considered the submissions of the Parties, and the evidence of the experts, I am satisfied that: 1. the Applicant's proposed arrangements for parking (see above at [(c)]), are acceptable; 2. the proposed use of one car space for use as a car share space would provide for the equivalent up to 21 car spaces within the development, in satisfaction of the provisions of cl 29(2)(e)(iia) of SEPP ARH, along with a further space (identified as space 9) that would be dedicated for use in relation to waste collection; 3. the proposed allocation of a car space for use as a car share space, as well as the dedication of a space for waste collection, incorporating the installation of a folding and lockable bollard, managed by the boarding house manager, should be confirmed within a condition of consent; 4. there should be no requirement within the conditions of consent for the allocation of a car space within the development for a visitor space because no evidence has been provided to me that such an allocation is required under a provision of either WDCP or SEPP ARH, and in my assessment, it is more appropriate to leave the allocation of residential parking spaces to the discretion of the manger; 5. the Respondent's proposed condition 15 should be amended to reflect the Applicant's proposed allocation of car parking spaces, as follows: "15. CAR PARKING ALLOCATIONS A total of 19 car vehicle parking spaces are to be provided, allocated in the following manner: 14 residential parking spaces 2 accessible parking spaces for resident use 1 car space allocated for use by the boarding house manager 1 car share parking space 1 space allocated for waste collection, incorporating a folding and lockable bollard Details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the relevant construction certificate."
Further evidence of heritage experts concerning design matters
Other matters
Consideration of objector submissions
Conclusions
Directions
Amendments 18 October 2021 - Amended typographical error with Applicant's solicitors. 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: 18 October 2021
Wainidiva Pty Ltd
Waverley Council
(2004) 138 LGERA 237
(2018) 236 LGERA 256
(2007) 156 LGERA 446