Surry Suplex Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1549

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Surry Suplex Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1549 Hearing dates: 17 – 18 November 2016 Date of orders: 22 November 2016 Decision date: 22 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O'Neill C Decision: Directions for amended architectural drawings, refer to paragraph 37 Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: boarding house; floor to floor height of the retail tenancy at ground floor; impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the heritage item adjacent; height of the street wall. Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Trinvass Pty Ltd and Anor v Council of the City of Sydney [2015] NSWLEC 151 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Surry Suplex Pty Ltd (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A. Pickles SC (Applicant) Dr S. Berveling barrister (Respondent)

Solicitors: Jaku Legal (Applicant) Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/176706

Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. D/2015/1693 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 6 storey building containing 42 boarding house rooms, two ground floor retail tenancies and bicycle parking (the proposal) at 202-210 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills (the site), by the Council of the City of Sydney (the Council). 2. The conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) was vacated by the Court on 26 August 2016 and the applicant was granted leave to rely on an amended proposal on 16 September 2016. The applicant was granted leave at the commencement of the hearing to rely on a further amended proposal (Revision R, exhibit A). The applicant tendered a montage of an alternative street elevation in response to expert evidence (exhibit G).