Background
Lanevick Pty Ltd appealed Hunter’s Hill Council’s deemed refusal of DA2025/0262 for demolition and construction of a residential apartment building at 14–16 Venus Street, Gladesville. The original proposal was for a part eight-, part nine-storey building containing 51 apartments, basement parking, lot consolidation, strata subdivision and landscaping.
At a conciliation conference, the parties agreed to amend the proposal. The changes reduced the building by a storey, increased setbacks, improved privacy, overshadowing and internal amenity outcomes, and addressed tree, vehicle-access, waste-management and stormwater issues. The resulting proposal was an eight-storey, 39-apartment building, including four affordable-housing apartments to be managed by Whitechapel Community Housing for 15 years.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Pullinger held that the agreed outcome was one the Court could make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). The Court upheld the appeal and granted consent to the amended development application, subject to conditions.
The Court accepted the applicant’s cl 4.6 requests to vary the applicable 26.62 m height standard and the six-storey standard. Although the building would reach 29.456 m and comprise eight storeys, the Court found the variations adequately justified: the remaining height exceedance was relatively minor, concentrated around the central core and lift overruns, and the amended design was compatible with the locality while avoiding unreasonable amenity impacts.
Key Takeaways
- A deemed-refusal appeal can be resolved through conciliation where the agreed decision is within the Court’s statutory powers.
- Design amendments reducing scale and improving setbacks, privacy and overshadowing can resolve substantial development-control disputes.
- The Court approved cl 4.6 variations for both height and storeys after finding sufficient environmental planning grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in converting a negotiated planning outcome into binding development consent after independently confirming statutory prerequisites and merits considerations.
It also shows how affordable-housing incentives under the Housing SEPP may affect applicable height and floor-space controls, while not removing the need to justify any remaining departure from development standards.