Background
RB656 Holdings appealed Woollahra Municipal Council’s refusal of DA253/2025/1 for demolition of the existing building and construction of a shop-top housing development, parking, landscaping and associated works at 650 New South Head Road, Rose Bay. The site is in the E1 Local Centre zone, where shop-top housing is permitted with consent.
The parties held a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), following an earlier unsuccessful conciliation process. The application was amended and re-notified; submissions from residents, including an objector’s oral submissions, were considered. The amended proposal included an infill affordable-housing component managed by a registered community housing provider.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Espinosa upheld the appeal and granted development consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A, for the five-storey shop-top housing development.
The Court found that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could lawfully make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act. Relevant planning prerequisites were met, including those concerning affordable housing, contaminated land, acid sulfate soils, stormwater, traffic, noise and the classified-road frontage. The Court also accepted clause 4.6 requests supporting departures from applicable height, minimum site-area and landscaped-area standards.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 development appeal may be resolved by a conciliated agreement where the agreed decision is within the Court’s power.
- The affordable-housing provisions supported a higher permissible floor space ratio, while the proposal’s 2.45:1 ratio remained below the 2.6:1 allowance.
- The Court accepted planning justifications for height, site-area and landscaped-area non-compliances and imposed conditions on the consent.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how an amended proposal with an affordable-housing component can use the Housing SEPP’s incentives while still requiring compliance, or justified variation, under the applicable planning controls.
It also confirms that, in a s 34 conciliation outcome, the Court’s task is to determine whether the parties’ agreement is a decision it could properly make—not to conduct a fresh merits assessment of every originally disputed issue.