DPG Project 29 v Inner West Council — Court approves amended co-living development

Case
DPG Project 29 v Inner West Council
Court
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Judge
Cathleen Sherry (of New South Wales, 2025)
Date Decided
25 August 2026
Citation
[2026] NSWLEC 1541
Topics
planning appeal, co-living housing, development consent, conciliation

Background

DPG Project 29 Pty Ltd appealed the deemed refusal of its development application for land at 409–415 Parramatta Road, Petersham, and 3 Renwick Street, Leichhardt. The proposal, as amended, involved partial demolition, lot amalgamation and a part-six, part-seven storey mixed-use building with ground-floor commercial space, 76 co-living units, basement works and at-grade parking.

The parties participated in a Land and Environment Court Act s 34 conciliation conference. Following further negotiations, they filed a signed agreement supporting approval subject to conditions. The applicant sought leave to rely on amended plans and supporting material that resolved the Council’s concerns.

The Court’s Holding

Acting Commissioner Sherry upheld the appeal and granted development consent to the amended proposal, subject to the annexed conditions. The Court was satisfied that the agreed outcome was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).

The Court accepted that the statutory prerequisites had been met, including consultation, integrated-development requirements, relevant environmental planning controls and the proposed variations to floor-space-ratio and co-living parking standards. It also ordered the applicant to pay the Council $20,000 in costs thrown away by the amendment within 14 days.

Key Takeaways

  • A court may dispose of a planning appeal under a signed s 34 agreement where the agreed decision is legally available.
  • The Court accepted the proposed FSR and parking variations as adequately justified under the applicable planning controls.
  • The approval followed a deemed-refusal appeal and was granted subject to detailed conditions, including WaterNSW terms.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the role of s 34 conciliation in resolving development appeals after amended plans address a council’s concerns. The Court’s task was to confirm that the agreed consent was within power; it did not undertake a merits assessment of discretionary s 4.15 matters.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top