Background
JSS Asset Management Services Pty Ltd and Designcorp Architects Pty Ltd appealed Georges River Council’s deemed refusal of DA2026/0066 for alterations and additions to an existing five-storey residential flat building at 10–14 Vaughan Street, Blakehurst. The amended proposal added one level, increasing apartments from 37 to 44, including six affordable-housing apartments; reduced parking from 58 to 54 spaces; and increased excavation for a second basement level.
The proceedings were brought under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). After a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed on amended plans and conditions under which consent should be granted.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Washington upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement because it was a decision the Court could properly have made under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
The Court accepted that the amended proposal met the applicable planning requirements, including the in-fill affordable-housing provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. Its 1.778:1 floor-space ratio was within the applicable 1.8:1 maximum. The Court also accepted a clause 4.6 variation for limited exceedances of the 18-metre height limit by roof and lift overruns, finding compliance unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that sufficient environmental-planning grounds justified the variation.
The applicants were ordered to pay the Council $2,500 in costs thrown away by the amendment of the application.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 deemed-refusal appeal can be resolved through a s 34 conciliation agreement where the agreed outcome is one the Court could lawfully make.
- The Court approved an amended 44-unit scheme with six affordable-housing units, subject to conditions.
- Limited roof and lift-overrun height exceedances were permitted through a clause 4.6 variation.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the practical role of conciliation in resolving development appeals after an applicant amends a proposal to address the consent authority’s concerns. It also illustrates how an affordable-housing component can engage the Housing SEPP’s in-fill affordable-housing provisions while still requiring close assessment of density, height, parking and design requirements.