Samadi Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2014] NSWLEC 1138

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Samadi Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2014] NSWLEC 1138 Hearing dates: 7 July 2014 Decision date: 11 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: (1)The appeal is upheld. (2)Development consent to DA/2014/458 for the provision of two additional three-bedroom residential units forming a new top storey atop the mixed use building approved at 517-527 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills is granted, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. (3)The exhibits may be returned except for 1, 4, 5, B, C and E. Catchwords: Development application: exceedance of height standard, visual impact in heritage conservation area, precedence. Legislation Cited: Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2011 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Samadi Developments Pty Limited (Applicant)

City of Sydney Council (Respondent) Representation: Mr M Staunton with Mr G Hartley (Applicant)

Ms A Pearman with Ms K Morrin (Respondent) Gadens Lawyers (Applicant)

City of Sydney Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 10319 of 2014

Judgment

Background 1This appeal was lodged against council's deemed refusal of a development application for two x three-bedroom units, forming a new top floor to a recently approved seven-storey mixed-use building located at 517-527 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills. 2The initial consent granted in 2012 was for the seven-storey building containing basement parking, four retail tenancies, thirty-three x onebedroom units, eight x two-bedroom units and one x threebedroom unit. There was a subsequent change in use approval to allow some of the units to be serviced apartments. 3Insofar as a number of contentions were initially identified, some were addressed during the appeal process with the main issue concerning: The height of the proposal in terms of its exceedence of the height development standard of 22 m in the LEP, with particular reference to the location of the site within the Cleveland Gardens Conservation Area. 4This contention relates mainly to the visual impact of the two proposed rooftop levels and also the precedential effect of any approval, considering that there are a number of other neighbouring development sites in close proximity to the subject site.