Background
Selwyn Street Development Pty Ltd appealed North Sydney Council’s deemed refusal of a development application for 7–9 Selwyn Street, Wollstonecraft. The original proposal was for an eight-storey residential flat building with 32 apartments, including five affordable homes, basement parking, communal open space, landscaping, demolition and tree removal.
At the hearing, the applicant amended its proposal without opposition. The changes reduced the project to 28 apartments and 50 parking spaces, increased setbacks and landscaping, reduced the building’s height and bulk, relocated the parking ramp, and added privacy measures. The Council agreed that its appeal contentions had been resolved; residents had nevertheless raised concerns including height, heritage, traffic, trees, amenity and construction impacts.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Miller upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended part eight-, part nine-storey building, subject to agreed conditions. The Court independently assessed the proposal under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and found it lawful and appropriate.
The Court accepted that the amendments and conditions addressed the Council’s contentions and adequately dealt with residents’ substantive concerns. It found the project compatible with the precinct’s desired future character and applicable affordable-housing requirements. The Court also accepted a clause 4.6 variation for the 29.37-metre height, which exceeded the applicable 28.6-metre height available with the affordable-housing bonus by 0.7 metres.
Key Takeaways
- An amended proposal can resolve planning objections and support approval on a deemed-refusal appeal.
- The Court must still make its own statutory planning assessment even where the council no longer presses contentions.
- The applicant must pay the Council’s costs thrown away by the amendment, as agreed or assessed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical value of redesigning a contested apartment proposal to improve setbacks, landscaping, height, parking and privacy outcomes. It also confirms that a modest height variation may be approved where supported by adequate planning grounds and the overall development remains acceptable.