Notice of Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting

The meeting of the Burwood Local Planning Panel will be held at Conference Room, 2 Conder Street, Burwood on Tuesday 20 January 2026 at 6:00 PM to consider the matters contained in the attached Agenda.

Tommaso Briscese

General Manager

Agenda

For a Notice of Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting of Burwood Council to be held in the Conference Room, Level 1, 2 Conder Street, Burwood on Tuesday 20 January 2026  at 6.00pm.

Welcome to the meeting of the Burwood Local Planning Panel

I declare the Meeting opened at

1.       Acknowledgement of Country

Burwood Council acknowledges the Wangal Peoples who are the traditional custodians of the area. We pay our respects to their elders past and present.

2.       Introduction of Panel Members

3.       Recording of Meeting

Members of the public are advised that Meetings of the Panel are audio recorded for the purpose of assisting with the preparation of Minutes and the recording of the public part of the meeting will be published on Council’s website.

4.       Explanation of how the panel will operate

None of the matters before the Panel today qualify for a public hearing. Consequently, there are no members of the public making representations to the Panel for this meeting.

The Panel has undertaken site investigations and we have before us reports provided by Burwood Council officers on the matters for consideration.

For each matter, the Council officer will briefly give an overview.

All members of the public who have registered to speak will have the opportunity to address the panel. I will invite you to speak and commence by stating your name and address or whom you represent.

After all speakers have been heard, the panel will adjourn to deliberate on the matter.

The Panel will make determinations on the matters before it. Each determination will include reasons for the determination, and all such details will be included in the official record of the meeting.

5.       Apologies/Leave of Absences

6.       Declarations of Interest by Panel Members

7.       Chair introduction of Agenda Item

8.       Council Officer Overview

9.       Development Applications

(Item DA1/26)          Development Application No. DA.2025.66 at 28-34 Victoria Street, 17 George Street and 21 George Street, Burwood........................................ 4

Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting 20 January 2026

Development Applications

(Item DA1/26) Development Application No. DA.2025.66 at 28-34 Victoria Street, 17 George Street and 21 George Street, Burwood.

File No: 25/71788

Report by Senior Assessment Planner 

Owner:                         Pierre Sleiman

Applicant:                    Georges Jreije c/o Urban Link Architects

Location:                     28-34 Victoria Street, 17 George Street, and 21 George Street, Burwood

Zoning:                        MU1 Mixed Use

Proposal

Alterations and additions to add additional storeys and residential apartments to three multi-storey buildings within an approved mixed-use development, known as Building A, Building B, and Building C, located at 28-34 Victoria Street, 21 George Street and 17 George Street, Burwood, respectively.

The application proposes an additional 4 stories to a lower component of Building A (without increasing the overall height of the approved 40 storey building), an additional 4 stories to Building B (increasing from 33 to 37 stories, and an additional 4 stories to Building C (increasing from 26 to 30 stories). Amendments to communal open space, adaptable/liveable units, waste bins, basement storage and parking arrangements are also proposed to facilitate the additional apartments.

The application proposes an additional 29 residential apartments across the site, 5 of which are affordable housing units. The proposal will result in the overall number of residential apartments on the site increasing from 380 to 409, including an increase of affordable housing units from 75 to 80. 

1. Figure 1: Extract from the architectural plans of the proposed development. Source: Urban Link Architects.

The proposal is outlined in detail below:

Building A – 28-34 Victoria Street (40 storey building)

·    10 additional units added over 4 floors to the lower component of the tower (no change to the existing maximum building height).

·    Increase in the number of units from 252 to 262 (10 additional units).

·    Residential gross floor area (GFA) increased from 21,516m² to 22,775m² (1259m² increase).

·    Communal open space split into two levels and relocated to Level 36 and 37, and increased in size by 7m² .

·    Visitor car parking spaces converted to residential car spaces at basement level, and bicycle spaces added.

·    2 additional bins (1 waste and 1 recycling bin) added to basement level.

Building B – 21 George Street (37 storey building)

·    Four additional storeys, increasing the building height from 33 to 37 storeys.

·    Increase in the number of units from 75 to 83 (8 additional), including increasing the number of affordable housing units from 75 to 77.

·    Residential GFA increased from 6365m² to 7360m² (995m² increase).

·    Additional residential car and motorcycle parking spaces at the basement level.

·    Communal open space relocated from Level 28 to Level 31.

Building C – 17 George Street (30 storey building)

·    Four additional storeys, increasing the building height from 26 to 30 storeys.

·    Increase in the number of units from 53 to 64 (11 additional), including adding 3 affordable housing units.

·    Residential GFA increased from 4746m² to 5755m² (1009m² increase).

·    2 additional bins added to the ground floor level (1 waste and 1 recycling bin).

·    Unit L9.03 converted to an adaptable and liveable unit.

·    Increased floorplate of penthouse at Level 28 and 29.

·    2 additional bins (1 waste and 1 recycling bin) added to basement level.

·    Added storage cages and increase of 13 residential car spaces and bicycle racks to basement levels.

Development Summary
	Approved	Proposed
Floor Space Ratio	6.44:1	6.93:1
Total GFA	42,419m^2	45,683m^2
Total Residential GFA	32,6/27m^2	35,890m^2
Affordable Housing Residential GFA	6,365m^2(15% of Total GFA)	6909m^2(15% of total GFA)
Max. Building Height	136.70m	Unchanged
Market priced residential units	305	329
Car parking spaces (residential component of the development)	410	423
Affordable housing residential units	75	80
Overall number of residential units	380	409

2. Table 1: Development Summary

Details of the proposed changes to each building is provided in the table below:

Building A – 28-34 Victoria Street
Control	Approved SSDA	Proposed
Floor Space Ratio	6.559:1	6.852:1
Gross Floor Area (total)	27,812m^2	29,058m^2
Residential GFA	21,528m^2	22,774m^2
Building Height	136.73m (RL 154.65)	As Existing (RL 154.65)
Carparking (total)	383 spaces	As Existing
Residential Units (total)	252	262
Affordable Housing Residential Units	0	0
Communal open space	2,208m^2	2,215m^2 (52.2%)
Deep soil	325.63m^2	As Existing
Building B – 21 George Street
Control	Approved	Proposed
Floor Space Ratio	7.54:1	8.49:1
Gross Floor Area (total)	7,939m^2	8,934m^2
Residential GFA	6,365m^2 (including 6365m^2affordable housing)	7,360m^2 (including 6679m^2of affordable housing)
Building Height	110.3m (RL 131.30)	122.84m (RL 143.90)
Carparking (total)	74	As Existing
Residential Units (total)	75	83
Affordable Housing Residential Units	75	77
Communal open space	16	17 (20%)
Deep soil	0	0
Building C – 17 George Street
Control	Approved	Proposed
Floor Space Ratio	5.13:1	5.91:1
Gross Floor Area (total)	6,668m^2	7,677m^2
Residential GFA	4,746m^2	5,755m^2 (including 230m^2of affordable housing)
Building Height	83.35m (RL 107.70)	95.91m (RL 120.10)
Carparking (total)	97	110
Residential Units (total)	53	64
Affordable Housing Residential Units	0	3
Communal open space	432m^2 (33.2%)	As Existing
Deep soil	91m^2	As Existing

BLPP Referral Criteria

Pursuant to the Ministerial direction dated 6 May 2024, under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the DA is to be determined by the BLPP for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal is ‘sensitive development’ to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 – Chapter 4 (Design of residential apartment development) applies.

2.   Development applications for which the developer has offered to enter into a planning agreement.

1.

3.   The development contravenes a development standard imposed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 by more than 10%.

Background

Below is a timeline of previous DAs and modifications that are relevant to the subject application:

DA No.	Description	Determination
Council DA -DA.2019.91	28 Victoria St, Burwood 2134 NSW 28A-30 Victoria St, Burwood 2134 NSW 32-34 Victoria St, Burwood 2134 NSW Demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a 30-level mixed use development containing 179 residential units above basement parking.	Approved 15/09/2020 Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel
Council DA DA.2020.104	28 Victoria St, Burwood 2134 NSW Temporary installation of three (3) Advertising Signage panels	Approved 17/12/2020 Council staff under delegation
Council DA DA.2020.110	17 George St, Burwood Demolition of all existing structures and construction of a 24-storey mixed-use development comprising of a 4-storey podium and 20-storey tower, including a retail ground floor, 3-storeys of commercial, 2-storeys of serviced apartments and 19-residential levels, over 4-levels of basement car parking at 17 George St.	Approved 12/04/2022 Burwood Local Planning Panel
Council Mod DA.2020.110	17 George St, Burwood Shop top housing S4.55(1) Modification Application to modify an existing Consent No. 110/2020 for alterations and amendments to the unit mix.	Approved 15/02/2023 Council staff under delegation
Council Mod DA.2019.91	28-32 Victoria St, Burwood Construct an additional half basement level and configure the basement level layout.	Approved 18/05/2023 Council staff under delegation
Council DA DA.2023.93	28 Victoria St, Burwood 2134 NSW Change of use of land or a building or the classification of a building. Converting the previously approved commercial/retail podium to a private hospital as well as minor modifications to the building envelope and footprint. There is no change to the previously approved residential component.	Approved 3/04/2024
State Significant DA SSD 69615996	28-34 Victoria St, 17 George St and 21 George St, Burwood The proposed development contains a total of 150 additional apartments, including 75 market and 75 in-fill affordable housing units, and would provide a total of 380 apartments across the three buildings, increasing the total number of overall apartments from 230 to 380. The construction of the three buildings will be undertaken in three stages, with stage 1 comprising Building A due to be complete in March 2027, and stages 2 and 3comprising Building B and Building C, which are both due to be complete in November 2027. Building A Alterations and additions to an approved mixed- use building at 28-34 Victoria Street involving: ·    construction of ten additional storeys containing 73 units (total of 40 storeys and 252 units) ·    construction of an additional half storey basement to accommodate additional parking and waste requirements ·    amendments to level 3 of the podium to increase communal open space ·    minor amendments throughout the building to facilitate the development Building C Alterations and additions to an approved mixed- use building at 17 George Street involving: ·    construction of two additional storeys containing two units (total of 26 storeys and 53 units) ·    construction of an additional basement level to accommodate additional parking and waste requirements ·    minor amendments throughout the building to facilitate the development Building B Demolition of an existing building, earthworks and construction of a new 33 storey mixed-use building at 21 George Street involving: ·    a five-level basement for parking and waste services ·    four storey podium containing commercial and retail uses ·    a 29-storey tower containing 75 affordable housing units and nine serviced apartments. Associated works ·    Provision of a publicly accessible privately-owned through-site link located between 17 George Street and 28-34 Victoria Street ·    Landscape works at 17 George Street and 28-34 Victoria Street.	Approved 16/12/2024 NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Council Mod DA.2019.091	Section 4.55(1A) Modification to DA.2019.91 seeking modifications to the windows and minor internal layout amendments at the podium level in association with the hospital use approved under DA.2023.93.	Approved 24/09/2025 Council staff under delegation

3. Table 2: Development Background

Timeline of this development application:

1)   11 September 2025 - application lodged with Council via the NSW Planning Portal. Once lodged, internal referrals and public notification were carried out. The application was publicly notified between 01 October 2025 to 29 October 2025. Two (2) submissions from the public were received during the notification process.

2.

2)   10 November 2025 – request for additional information letter sent to the applicant, which raised concerns about non-compliance with Clause 16(1) of the Housing SEPP and the associated Clause 4.6 variation request. Specifically, Council raised concerns that the proposal did not maintain the overall percentage of affordable housing, relative to total GFA, as was approved under the SSDA.

3.

3)   14 November 2025 – The applicant submitted an amended clause 4.6 variation request, however, in Council’s view the proposal remained unsatisfactory as it did not provide at least 15% of the overall GFA on the site as affordable housing.

4.

4)   25 November 2025 – The application was formally reviewed by Council’s Design Review Panel (DRP).

5.

5)   26 November 2025 – Council advised the applicant that a reduction in the percentage of affordable housing below the 15% approved would not be supported. The applicant subsequently agreed to amend the proposal and provide architectural plans which provided at least 15% affordable housing. The amended plans were submitted to Council on 26 November 2025.

6.

6)   1 December 2025 – a further request for additional information was sent to the applicant after an assessment of the architectural plans for ‘Building A’ revealed that physical changes to the building associated with the hospital component, approved under the Section 4.55(1A) modification of DA.2019.091 on 24 September 2025, had not been incorporated into the applicant’s latest architectural plans.

7.

8. Considering that it is the intent of the applicant to retain the changes to the building approved under the recent Section 4.55(1A) modification of DA.2019.091, the proposed architectural plans needed to be updated to reflect this. The applicant also needed to submit a traffic and parking letter to confirm that the proposal will not result in any changes to the previously approved non-residential components, including but not limited to vehicular access and loading/servicing arrangements.

9.

7)   2 December 2025 – the applicant submitted updated plans for ‘Building A’ which accurately depict physical changes to the building associated with the hospital component, that were approved under the recent Section 4.55(1A) modification of DA.2019.091.

10.

8)   12 December 2025 – the applicant submitted an updated Traffic and Parking letter, prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, to support the updated plans for ‘Building A’. The applicant also submitted a written response to address the minutes of the DRP meeting.

11.

9)   23 December 2025 – the applicant submitted an additional clause 4.6 variation request, seeking to justify a variation to clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP.

Statutory Requirements

The application is assessed under the provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), as amended, which include:

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

·    State Environmental Planning Policy State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

·    Burwood Local Environmental Plan (BLEP) 2012.

·    Burwood Development Control Plan (BDCP) 2013, as amended.

·    The regulations (of the EP&A Act).

·    The likely social, environmental and economic impacts of the development.

·    The suitability of the site for development.

·    Submissions made under the Act and Regulations, and

·    The public interest.

Locality

The Site

Legal Description	The subject site is commonly referred to as 28-34 Victoria Street, 17 George Street, and 21 George Street, Burwood. It is comprised of three adjoining land parcels legally described as: ·    Lot 2308 in DP1286895 (28-34 Victoria Street); and ·    Lot 170 in DP 1301780 (17 George Street); and ·    SP 63994 (21 George Street).
Site Area	6,592m^2
Site Dimensions	Irregular shaped site (horseshoe shape)

4.   Figure 6: Location Map. Source: NSW DPHI.

5. Figure 7: (above) Aerial view showing the subject site and the surrounding area.

The site fronts Victoria Street to the north and George Street to the south. Existing vehicular crossovers are located along the George Street and Victoria Street frontages of each of the lots. The site is located 150m north of Burwood railway station and within 100m of multiple bus stops on Burwood Road and Victoria Street, that are used by regular bus services. The site is not identified as being flood prone. A sewer easement extends along the rear boundaries of 17 and 21 George Street.

Existing development on the site

The site has approval for three multi-storey buildings, with one building (Building A) reaching 40-storeys in height. The approved development is currently under construction. The site does not contain any heritage items, is not located in a heritage conservation area, and is not in the immediate vicinity of any heritage items.

Currently, a mixed-use building with a 5-level basement is currently under construction at 28-34 Victoria Street (Building A).

17 George Street is currently a vacant site, following demolition of a 4-storey residential flat building in 2024. Development consent DA.2020.110 was issued for the construction of a 24-storey shop-top housing development at 17 George Street.

21 George Street is currently occupied by a 3-storey residential flat building, which is to be demolished.

An SSD application (SSD 69615996) was approved by the NSW DPHI in December 2024, which includes three 26-40 storey buildings (Buildings A, B & C) across the site.

The surrounding area

The site is situated within the Burwood Town Centre and is surrounded by a diverse mix of land uses and built forms. The locality is currently transitioning from low-density to high-density development. Nearby, several new mixed-use developments featuring shop-top housing have been completed at 36–38 Victoria Street and at 9–15, 23–27, and 29 George Street.

Burwood Road lies approximately 150 metres to the west, while Parramatta Road, a State arterial road, is about 675 metres to the north. The Burwood Town Centre, together with the adjoining Burwood North precinct, is organised around a north–south ‘main street’ (Burwood Road) which extends from Parramatta Road in the north to Woodside Avenue in the south. Beyond this main street, but still within the town centre boundaries, recent developments range in height from three to 28 storeys. Several nearby redevelopments have taken the form of shop-top housing, reflecting growing demand for new residential accommodation. Victoria Street accommodates two-way traffic, with its northern side designated as a bus zone.

Planning Assessment

SECTION 4.15 EVALUATION

(1)  Matters for consideration-general

In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application—

(a)  the provisions of—

(i)         Any environmental planning instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 - Chapter 4 Remediation of land

The object of [Chapter 4 of the SEPP] of is to provide for a Statewide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land. In particular, this Chapter aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment—

(a)  by specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work, and

(b)  by specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out a remediation work in particular, and

(c)  by requiring that a remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.

Comment: The application does not propose any changes to the extent of excavation approved under Council development consents DA.2019.91 (as modified), DA.2020.110 (as modified), and State Significant Development consent SSD 69615996. The works proposed under this application are either above-ground or contained within the area of already approved basement excavation. As a result, no concerns are raised in relation to land contamination.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 – Chapter 2 Standards for residential development

The aims of the SEPP encourage design and construction of more sustainable buildings across NSW. Chapter 2 prescribes standards for residential development that is considered BASIX development.

Comment: The applicant has submitted a BASIX Certificate and a 7-star NatHERS Certificate to support the proposal. These certificates form part of the approved, stamped plans and documentation.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021

Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 relates to development for affordable housing. In December 2023, the NSW Government implemented in-fill affordable housing reforms to encourage private developers to boost affordable housing and deliver more market housing. The objective of the new provisions is to facilitate the delivery of new in-fill affordable housing to meet the needs of very low, low and moderate income households.

Chapter 2, Division 1 In-Fill Affordable Housing

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 Chapter 2, Division 1 In-Fill Affordable Housing

Proposed

Compliance

15C Development to which division applies

(1)  This division applies to development that includes residential development if

(a)  The development is permitted with consent under Chapter 3, Part 4, Chapter 5 or another environmental planning instrument, and

(b)  The affordable housing component is at least 10%, and

(c)  All or part of the development is carried out

(i)         For development on land in the Six Cities Region, other than in the City Shoalhaven local government area, in an accessible area, or

(ii)        For development on other land – within 800m walking distance of land in a relevant zone or an equivalent land use zone.

(2)  Affordable housing provided as part of development because of a requirement under another chapter of this policy, another environmental planning instrument or a planning agreement is not counted towards the affordable housing component under this division.

(3)  In this Section, relevant zone means the following:

(a)  Zone E1 Local Centre,

(b)  Zone MU1 Mixed Use,

(c)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,

(d)  Zone B2 Local Centre

(e)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

The development is permitted with consent in the zone.

The overall affordable housing component equates to 15% (6909sqm of gross floor area); and 16.7% of the additional  gross floor area proposed under this application is for affordable housing.

The site is located within an accessible area. It is centrally located within the Burwood Town Centre and 800m of the entry to Burwood Railway Station.

N/A

The site is zoned MU1 Mixed Use

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

Yes

16 Affordable Housing Requirements for additional floor space ratio.

(1)  The maximum floor space ratio for development that includes residential development to which this division applies is the maximum permissible floor space ratio of the land plus an additional floor space ratio of up to 30% based on the minimum affordable housing component calculated in accordance with subsection (2).

(2)  The minimum affordable housing component, which must be at least 10%, is calculated as follows—

(3)  If the development includes residential flat buildings or shop top housing, the maximum building height for a building used for residential flat buildings or shop top housing is the maximum permissible building height for the land plus an additional building height that is the same percentage as the additional floor space ratio permitted under subsection (1).

(4)  This section does not apply to development on land for which there is no maximum permissible floor space ratio.

Site Area: 6592sqm.

The maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the development is calculated as follows:

The maximum permissible FSR for land in ‘Area 2’ under clause 4.4A of the BLEP is 4.95:1 (total GFA of 32,630.40sqm). For the purposes of this application, this can be referred to as the ‘Base FSR’ ; plus

A bonus additional FSR of 30% of the maximum permissible FSR of the land, which equates to 4.95:1 + 1.98:1 (13,052.16 GFA) = 6.44:1 (42,452.48sqm).

The maximum permissible FSR under clause 16(1) is therefore 6.44:1.

Currently Approved FSR

The approved FSR under the existing SSDA consent is 6.44:1. This is explained in detail in the State Significant Development Assessment Report for SSD-69615996, dated December 2024.

Proposed FSR

The proposed FSR for the development is: 6.44:1 + an additional 7.69%, which equates to 6.93:1 .

The proposal therefore exceeds the maximum permissible FSR by 7.69% or 0.49:1.

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary clause 16(1)  pursuant to clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards of the BLEP. Refer to Note 1 – Variation of the floor space ratio development standard, below in this report.

The proposal seeks an additional floor space ratio of 1.98:1 (13,052.16sqm of GFA) above the BLEP maximum ‘Base FSR’ of 4.95:1.

Clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP requires the minimum affordable housing component to be half of the additional floor space ratio (as a percentage).

The proposed additional floor space ratio is 1.98:1, which is 40% of the  BLEP maximum ‘Base FSR’ of 4.95:1. Therefore, the affordable housing component should be 20% of the total GFA (45,683sqm) of the development. This equates to an overall total of 9,136.60sqm of GFA required for the purposes of affordable housing on the site.

The proposal provides 6909sqm or 15% of total GFA for the purposes of affordable housing, which is a shortfall of 2,227.60sqm, and does not comply with clause 16(2).

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary clause 16(2)  pursuant to clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards of the BLEP. Refer to Note 2 – Variation to the minimum affordable housing component, below in this report.

Yes, the proposal complies with the maximum building height under this clause. Please refer below to Note 3 – Maximum Building Height for details.

N/A

No, refer to Note 1 – Variation of the floor space ratio development standard, below in this report.

No, refer to Note 2 – Variation to the minimum affordable housing component, below in this report.

Yes, Please refer below to Note 3 – Maximum Building Height for details.

N/A

19 Non-discretionary development standards – the Act, S4.15

(1)  The object of this section is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to residential development under this division that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for the matters.

(2)  The following are non-discretionary development standards in relation to the residential development to which this division applies

(a)  a minimum site area of 450m²

(b)  a minimum landscaped area that is the lesser of

(i)         35m² per dwelling or

(ii)        30% of the site area

(c)  a deep soil zone on at least 15% of the site area, where

(i)         each deep soil zone has minimum dimensions of 3m, and

(ii)        if practicable, at least 65% of the deep soil zone is located at the rear of the site,

12.

(d)  living rooms and private open spaces in at least 70% of the dwellings receive at least 3 hours of direct solar access between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter

(e)  the following number of parking spaces for dwellings used for affordable housing

(i)         for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom—at least 0.4 parking spaces,

(ii)        for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms—at least 0.5 parking spaces,

(iii)       for each dwelling containing at least 3 bedrooms— at least 1 parking space; and

13.

(f)  the following number of parking spaces for dwellings not used for affordable housing:

(i)         for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom—at least 0.5 parking spaces,

(ii)        for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms—at least 1 parking space

(iii)       for each dwelling containing at least 3 bedrooms—at least 1.5 parking spaces,

(g)  the minimum internal area, if any, specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the type of residential development

The subject site has a total area of 6,592m2

The site is located within the ‘commercial core’ of the Burwood Town Centre, as mapped in the BDCP (page 65).

The proposal provides 48.5% of the site area as communal open space, exceeding the minimum requirements for amenity and landscaping. Vegetation is provided through landscaped areas, planter boxes positioned around upper-level communal areas and within rooftop communal spaces, to provide visual relief and greenery.

N/A – does not apply.

N/A – does not apply.

Currently Approved Car Parking Spaces

As currently approved, the development provides the following number of residential and visitor car parking spaces:

Spaces	A	B	C	Total
Res	229	46	61	336
Visitor	52	11	11	74
Total	281	57	72	410

Proposed Car Parking Spaces

The Applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report, prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 22.07.25, and a supplementary Traffic & Parking Matters letter prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 12.12.25, to support the proposal.

The proposal involves the addition of 29 residential apartments to the previously approved development, resulting in a total of 409 residential apartments across three buildings known as Building A, Building B & Building C, as follows:

Units	A	B	C	Total
1-bed	64	25	8	97
2-bed	156	29	44	229
3-bed	33	29	11	73
4-bed	9	0	1	10
Total	262	83	64	409

The following number of residential and visitor parking spaces are proposed within Building A, Building B & Building C:

Spaces	A	B	C	Total
Res	243	54	75	372
Visitor	38	3	10	51
Total	281	57	85	423

It is also noted that total of 162 bicycle parking spaces and 28 motorbike parking spaces are proposed, distributed across the three buildings.

Conclusion

The proposal will add 29 residential apartments to the site (an increase from 380 to 409 apartments), including 5 additional affordable housing apartments (an increase from 75 to 80).

Despite the reduction in visitor parking spaces, the Housing SEPP does not mandate the provision of any off-street visitor parking spaces.

The proposal will result in net increase of 13 car parking spaces (410 to 423, including residential and visitor spaces), distributed across three buildings, relative to the approved development. This is considered satisfactory overall when considering the site’s central and accessible location within the Burwood Town Centre.

Refer to ADG assessment below

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

20 Design Requirements

(1)  Development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of dual occupancies, manor houses or multi dwelling housing (terraces) under this division unless the consent authority has considered the Low Rise Housing Diversity Design Guide, to the extent to which the guide is not inconsistent with this policy

(2)  Subsection (1) does not apply to development to which Chapter 4 applies.

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to development under this division unless the consent authority has considered whether the design of the residential development is compatible with

(a)  the desirable elements of the character of the local area, or

(b)  for precincts undergoing transition—the desired future character of the precinct.

The proposed development is for a residential flat building.

Noted. Chapter 4 applies.

The proposed additional storeys to the approved development are consistent with the desired built form and character of the ‘commercial core’ of the Burwood Town Centre. The site is suitable to accommodate increased density, and the proposal aligns with the desired future character for the precinct.

N/A

Yes

Yes

21 Must be used for affordable housing for at least 15 years

(1)  Development consent must not be granted to development under this division unless the consent authority is satisfied that for a period of at least 15 years commencing on the day an occupation certificate is issued for the development

(a)  the development will include the affordable housing component required for the development under section 16, 17 or 18, and

(b)  the affordable housing component will be managed by a registered community housing provider.

(2)  This section does not apply to development carried out by or on behalf of the Aboriginal Housing Office or the Land and Housing Corporation.

The affordable housing units are clearly labelled on the architectural plans.

Condition to be imposed to ensure compliance.

N/A

Yes

Yes

N/A

22 Subdivision permitted with consent

(1)  Land on which development has been carried out under this division may be subdivided with development consent.

Subdivision is not proposed as part of this development application.

N/A

Note 1 – Variation of the floor space ratio development standard

The development exceeds the maximum permitted floor space ratio of 6.44:1 (42,452sqm of gross floor area) prescribed under clause 16(1) of the Housing SEPP. The development proposes a floor space ratio of 6.93:1 (45,683sqm of gross floor area), which exceeds the development standard by 7.69% (3263sqm).

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard pursuant to clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards of the BLEP, which presents a case that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard. The applicant’s case is set out below:

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances

The Court held that there are at least five ways by which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This principle was established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe). The five (5) ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary are:

1.   The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non- compliance with the standard; (First Test)

2.   The underlying objectives or purpose is not relevant to the development with the

consequence that compliance is unnecessary; (Second Test)

3.   The objectives would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable; (Third Test)

4.   The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granted consents departing from the standard hence the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary; (Fourth Test) and

5.   The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate. (Fifth Test)

It is generally understood that clause 4.6(3)(a) of the BLEP can be satisfied if it is established that a development satisfies one or more of points 1-5 above.

The applicant has submitted that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, for the following reasons:

First Test

The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non- compliance with the standard.

Clause 16(1) does not have a specific objective. The objectives can be deduced from Clause 15A – Objective of Division, as well as Clause 3 – Principles of Policy. The table on the following page demonstrates whether the principle of the Housing SEPP (i.e. Clause 3) are achieved notwithstanding the proposed variation (First Test under Wehbe).

The objective of the in-fill affordable housing division as stipulated in Clause 15A of the Housing SEPP is as follows:

The objective of this division is to facilitate the delivery of new in-fill affordable housing to meet the needs of very low, low and moderate-income households.

The proposal satisfies this objective by providing 29 additional residential units at market value. Increases in overall dwelling supplies enables more dwellings for very low, low and moderate-income households. Essentially, an increase in overall supply provides for additional housing for all households including very low to moderate income households. On this basis, the objective in Clause 15A is satisfied despite the numerical non-compliance.

(Note: Amended plans provided by the applicant provide 24 additional residential units at market value and 5 additional affordable housing units, instead of all 29 units at market value.)

Further, the principles of the policy as prescribed under Clause 3 of Chapter 1 in the Housing SEPP has been considered under this exercise, as shown in the table below.

6. Table 3: Submitted by the applicant with the Clause 4.6 request.

Second Test

The underlying objectives or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

The underlying objectives or purpose is relevant to the development and therefore is not relied upon.

Third Test

The objective would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

As outlined earlier, the overriding objectives of the Housing SEPP are to increase the quantity of housing, including diverse housing and affordable rental housing. Strict compliance with the FSR development standard would reduce the number of dwellings at the site, which thwarts the objective.

Fourth Test

The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

The standard has not been entirely abandoned by Council; however, it is worth noting that there are records of development within the recent decade that have been approved exceeding the permissible FSR as prescribed by the LEP. Please see Table 4 below for details.

7. Table 4: Submitted by the applicant with the Clause 4.6 request.

Fifth Test

The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.

The zoning of the land is reasonable and appropriate and therefore this reason is not relied

upon.

(Note: The applicant also provided an assessment against the objectives of clause 4.4 Floor space ratio and clause 4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratio of the BLEP. However, Council has not considered the assessment as these clauses are not the development standards sought to be varied. The standard being varied is clause 16(1) of the Housing SEPP.)

Council Comment: It is noted that amended plans submitted by the applicant now propose 24 additional market-rate units and 5 additional affordable housing units (rather than all 29 units at market rate).

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that strict compliance with the development standard prescribed by clause 16(1) of the Housing SEPP would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the BLEP.

Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ observed that in order for there to be ‘sufficient’ environmental planning grounds to justify a written request under Clause 4.6 to contravene a development standard, the focus must be on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not on the development as a whole.

In Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, Plain J observed that it is within the discretion of the consent authority to consider whether the environmental planning grounds relied on are particular to the circumstances of the proposed development on the particular site.

The applicant has submitted that  there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, for the following reasons:

·    The variation sought satisfies the objectives of the Clause 4.4-4.4A Floor Space Ratio development standard in BLEP 2012.

·    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the MU1 Mixed Use zone in the following manner:

o  The development does not discourage other land uses that generate employment opportunities.

o  The proposed development does not affect the approved development at street level. The approved street frontages will remain the same.

o  The proposal seeks to provide additional storeys to the approved multi-storey buildings on the site. Additional conflicts between land uses with adjoining zones are not likely to occur.

o  Approved land uses on the ground floor of the buildings will remain as approved.

·    Overall, the proposed building height and bulk is of an appropriate form and scale and is compatible with surrounding development and the desired future character for the locality. It is also not uncommon for FSR variations in Burwood Town Centre as demonstrated by [Table 4].

·    Exceedance of the FSR standard will not create additional building bulk that results in unreasonable environmental amenity impacts as follows:

o  The proposal will not result in the loss of views from surrounding development;

o  The proposal will not result in unreasonable overshadowing of adjoining properties. In particular, the low-density residential dwellings to the south-eastern side of the site will only be affected between 2pm to 3pm on 21 June (i.e. one hour only). Please refer to Solar Studies prepared by Urban Link Architects for details.

o  The proposal will provide a development which has been designed to ensure that the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties is maintained.

o  The proposal maintains the same building separations and setbacks as approved.

·    The additional storeys proposed on the approved building form continue to be stepped and comply with the building height plane as prescribed by Burwood LEP 2012 and Housing SEPP bonus provisions.

·    The proposed additions incorporate articulated facades that are a continuation of the approved which provides a well-proportioned building that is consistent with the streetscape.

·    Communal areas in Building A and B are relocated to higher levels which provide an improvement of solar access to these spaces. Communal open space in Building A will also be split into two levels (at Level 36 and 37) and increased in size by 7sqm.

·    The proposal complies with all relevant requirements stipulated by the Housing SEPP, Chapter 4, Design of residential apartment development, and Apartment Design Guidelines, in terms of solar access, natural ventilation, apartment size and layout, private open space and balconies, storage and communal open space. A complete assessment is provided within the accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Principle Planning & Urban Design. A Design Verification Statement prepared by Urban Link Architects is also submitted with this application.

·    Additional bins are provided at the basement levels of the buildings to cater to the increased residential units proposed.

·    A Traffic and Parking Assessment Report prepared by Varga Traffic Planning P/L is submitted with this application. The report concludes that the proposed development complies with Council’s DCP, Housing SEPP and ADG/TfNSW numerical parking requirements as well as Australian Standards design requirements. It also states that the proposal will not result in unacceptable traffic, parking, access or servicing implications.

·    The site falls within sub-category 1A of the TfNSW Guide to Traffic Impact Assessment, indicating that it is located within a high density inner metropolitan area where Council’s typically mandate reduced parking provisions. Nonetheless, adequate parking is provided as confirmed by the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report.

·    Affordable housing shortfall is addressed under separate Clause 4.6 Variation Statement.

·    The proposal will provide a suitable design and continue to provide suitable amenity in terms of the built environment and represents orderly and economic use and development of land, which are identified as objects of the Act. The building envelope and design is an appropriate response to the unique opportunities and constraints of the site, particularly, it strategically leverages the site’s location within the Burwood Town Centre and the building height allowances under the BLEP and Housing SEPP bonus provisions, enabling the delivery of additional housing units that will help address the critical housing shortage.

Council Comment: Based on the above, it is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard prescribed by clause 16(1) of the Housing SEPP, in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the BLEP.

Conclusion

Council is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that—

(a)  compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and;

(b)  there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

Note 2 – Variation to the minimum affordable housing component

The proposal seeks a variation to clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP, which sets out the minimum affordable housing component required to access the bonus floor space ratio under clause 16(1).

The proposal seeks an additional floor space ratio of 1.98:1 or 13,052.16sqm of GFA above the ‘Base’ BLEP maximum FSR of 4.95:1, proposing a total FSR of 6.93:1, which is equates to a 40% bonus above the ‘Base’ BLEP maximum FSR.

The proposal seeks to add an additional 3,263sqm of gross floor area to the approved development, and of this 544sqm will be dedicated as affordable housing (16.7% of the additional gross floor area).

Clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP requires the minimum affordable housing component to be at least 10%. The affordable housing component is calculated in accordance with this formula:

As the floor space ratio of 6.93:1 is 40% above of the BLEP maximum FSR of 4.95:1 (as a percentage), the affordable housing component should be 20% of the total GFA of the development, in accordance with the formula. This equates to 9,136.60sqm of the total GFA of 45,683sqm being required for the purposes of affordable housing. The proposal provides 6909sqm or 15% of GFA for the purposes of affordable housing, which is a shortfall of 2,227.60sqm or a 25% departure from the development standard prescribed by clause 16(2).

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the standard pursuant to clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards of the BLEP, which presents a case that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

The applicant’s case is set out below:

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances

The Court held that there are at least five ways by which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This principle was established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 (Wehbe). The five (5) ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary are:

1.   The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non- compliance with the standard; (First Test)

2.   The underlying objectives or purpose is not relevant to the development with the

consequence that compliance is unnecessary; (Second Test)

3.   The objectives would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable; (Third Test)

4.   The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granted consents departing from the standard hence the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary; (Fourth Test) and

5.   The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate. (Fifth Test)

It is generally understood that clause 4.6(3)(a) of the BLEP can be satisfied if it is established that a development satisfies one or more of points 1-5 above.

The applicant has submitted that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, for the following reasons:

First Test

The objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non- compliance with the standard.

Clause 16(2) does not have a specific objective. The objectives can be deduced from Clause 15A – Objective of Division, as well as Clause 3 – Principles of Policy. The table on the following page demonstrates whether the principles of the Housing SEPP (i.e. Clause 3) are achieved notwithstanding the proposed variation (First Test under Wehbe). The objective of the in-fill affordable housing division as stipulated in Clause 15A of the Housing SEPP is as follows:

The objective of this division is to facilitate the delivery of new in-fill affordable housing to meet the needs of very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

The DA itself includes 544sqm of ‘affordable housing’. As the proposal delivers new in fill affordable housing, the objective is satisfied. This 544sqm of affordable housing is in addition to the 6,365sqm of affordable housing already approved at the site. Therefore, a total of 6,909sqm of gross floor area will be provided for affordable housing purposes.

An application simply needs to provide affordable housing to satisfy the objective. It has been demonstrated that both the stand alone DA, and the development as a whole, will provide affordable housing. Therefore, the objective is satisfied.

Further, the principles of the policy as prescribed under Clause 3 of Chapter 1 in the Housing SEPP has been considered under this exercise, as shown in the table on the following page.

8. Table 5: Submitted by the applicant with the Clause 4.6 request.

As demonstrated above, the principles of the Housing SEPP under Chapter 1 Clause 3, and objectives of Chapter 2 Division 1 Infill Affordable Housing Clause 15A, are achieved notwithstanding the proposed variation.

Second Test

The underlying objectives or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

The underlying objectives or purpose is relevant to the development and therefore is not relied upon.

Third Test

The objective would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

The DA would provide an additional 544sqm of affordable housing floor space to the 6,365m2 of affordable housing floor space already approved at the site. This equates to a total affordable housing floor space of 6,909sqm, or 15.12% of the total GFA at the site.

Strict compliance would require 20% of the total floor space for use as affordable housing. Such a figure, when combined with the lower rental yields from affordable housing (i.e. 20- 30% below market rent) over a period of 15 years, is a significant impact to cash flow. It would render the project unfeasible and result in less overall housing supply and less affordable housing. This outcome thwarts the principles of the Housing SEPP and the objectives of the Part 2, Division.

Fourth Test

The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.

The standard has not been abandoned by Council in this case and so this reason is not

relied upon.

Fifth Test

The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.

The zoning of the land is reasonable and appropriate and therefore this reason is not relied

upon.

Council Comment: Based on the above, is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that strict compliance with the development standard prescribed by clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the BLEP.

Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ observed that in order for there to be ‘sufficient’ environmental planning grounds to justify a written request under Clause 4.6 to contravene a development standard, the focus must be on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not on the development as a whole.

In Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, Plain J observed that it is within the discretion of the consent authority to consider whether the environmental planning grounds relied on are particular to the circumstances of the proposed development on the particular site.

The applicant has submitted there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard, for the following reasons:

·    The variation sought satisfies the principles of the Housing SEPP under Chapter 1 Clause 3, and the objectives of Clause 15A of Chapter 2 Division 1 Infill Affordable Housing.

·    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the MU1 Mixed Use zone in the following manner:

o  The development does not discourage other land uses that generate employment opportunities;

o  The proposed variation relates to the affordable housing component of the development and will not affect active street frontages;

o  No additional conflict is created.

o  Approved land uses on the ground floor of the buildings will remain as approved.

·    The variation to the affordable housing component will not create any unreasonable visible or physical impacts on the site or adjoining properties.

Council Comment: Based on the above, it is considered that the applicant provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard prescribed by clause 16(2) of the Housing SEPP, in accordance with Clause 4.6(3)(b) of the BLEP.

Conclusion

Council is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that—

(c)  compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and;

(d)  there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.

Note 3 –  Maximum Building Height

The maximum building height under the BLEP is the is set by Building Height Plane (BHP) lines in the Burwood Town Centre. The BHP provides that development must not exceed 36 degrees measured at a height of 1m above ground level from the eastern side of Shaftesbury Road. The BHP aims to maintain the amenity of land outside and adjoining the Burwood Town Centre and provide such land with adequate solar access.

The maximum building height under clause 16(3) of the Housing SEPP is 30% above the maximum permissible building height under the BLEP, measured from ground level to the point where the BHP intersects with the site.

The  maximum permissible building heights (BLEP BHP height + an additional 30% height), for each building are:

Building A – RL 144.46 to RL 168.38 (160.42 RL directly above the highest point of the building)

Building B – RL 168.72 to RL 184

Building C – RL 122.73 to RL130.73

Currently Approved Building Heights (max.)

Building A – RL 154.65 (136.73m)

Building B – RL 131.3 (110.3m)

Building C – RL 107.7 (83.35m)

Proposed Building Heights (max.)

Building A – RL 154.65 (136.73m) (as approved)

Building B – RL 143.9 (122.84m)

Building C – RL 120.1 (95.91m)

The proposal remains below the BHP and therefore does not exceed the maximum permissible height prescribed by clause 16(3) of the Housing SEPP.

Presented on the following page are BHP diagrams of the approved SSDA development compared with those for the proposed development.

As Currently Approved under the SSDA

9. Figure 7: (above) BHP lines along George St, approved by DPHI on 16.12.24. Source: Urban Link Architects.

10. Figure 8: (above) BHP lines along Victoria St approved by DPHI on 16.12.24. Source: Urban Link Architects.

As Proposed under this development application

11. Figure 9: (above) BHP lines along George Street. Source: Urban Link Architects (2025).

12. Figure 10: (above) BHP lines along Victoria Street. Source: Urban Link Architects (2025).

Chapter 4 Design of residential apartment development

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 - Chapter 4 Design of residential apartment development applies to the proposal as it is a mixed use development with a residential component that does not include boarding houses or co-living housing, it is three or more storeys and contains four or more dwellings.

145   Referral to design review panel for development applications

Before determining the development application, the consent authority must refer the application to the design review panel for the local government area in which the development will be carried out for advice on the quality of the design of the development.

Comment: The application was reviewed by Burwood Council’s Design Review Panel (DRP) on 25 November 2025.

147 Determination of development applications and modification applications for residential apartment development

Development consent must not be granted to residential apartment development, and a development consent for residential apartment development must not be modified, unless the consent authority has considered the following—

a)    the quality of the design of the development, evaluated in accordance with the design principles for residential apartment development set out in Schedule 9 [of the SEPP];

Comment: An assessment against Schedule 9 of the SEPP is provided below.

b)    the Apartment Design Guide;

Comment: An assessment against the ADG is provided below.

c)    any advice received from a design review panel within 14 days after the consent authority referred the development application or modification application to the panel.

Comment: The application was referred to the DRP for design advice on 25 November 2025. The DRP’s advice has been taken into account in this assessment. Both the Panel’s recommendations and the applicant’s responses are outlined in this report below under Note 4.

14.

148 Non-discretionary development standards for residential apartment development—the Act, s 4.15

The object of this section is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to residential apartment development that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for the matters.

The following are non-discretionary development standards apply to the proposal:

b)   the internal area for each apartment must be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the apartment type specified in Part 4D of the Apartment Design Guide; and

c)   the ceiling heights for the building must be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

Comment: Complies. Please refer to Apartment Design Guide assessment below in this report.

149 Apartment Design Guide prevails over development control plans

A requirement, standard or control for residential apartment development that is specified in a development control plan and relates to the following matters has no effect if the Apartment Design Guide also specifies a requirement, standard or control in relation to the same matter—

a)   visual privacy,

b)   solar and daylight access,

c)   common circulation and spaces,

d)   apartment size and layout,

e)   ceiling heights,

f)    private open space and balconies,

g)   natural ventilation,

h)    storage.

Comment: Please refer to Apartment Design Guide assessment below in this report.

Schedule 9 - Design Quality Principles

Development consent must not be granted to residential apartment development unless the consent authority has considered the quality of the design of the development, evaluated in accordance with the design principles for residential apartment development set out in Schedule 9 of the Housing SEPP.

Council is satisfied that the proposal achieves the objectives of Schedule 9 of the Housing SEPP as detailed in the table below:

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character

The proposal aligns with the desired future character of the ‘commercial core’ of the Burwood Town Centre. It delivers a multi-storey mixed-use development consistent with the area’s transition to a higher-density precinct. The design generally enhances the public realm with articulated podiums tower forms, and integrated communal open space.

Principle 2: Built Form and Scale

The proposal’s height, bulk, and scale are appropriate to the site and compatible with the town centre’s desired future character. The additional height proposed to the tower elements is at a height where visual impact is minimal at street level. The overall design is satisfactory in terms of internal amenity, outlook, and pedestrian experience.

Principle 3: Density

The proposed density is appropriate for the site and its central location. Apartment numbers, parking provision, and dwelling mix support housing diversity and precinct objectives. Increased density at this location is appropriate given proximity to transport, services, infrastructure, and community facilities.

Principle 4: Sustainability

The development meets BASIX requirements and achieves an average 7-Star NatHERs rating. Building orientation, massing, and articulation provide solar access, ventilation, and daylight for apartments and communal spaces. Design features, including overhangs and performance glazing, enhance energy efficiency.

Principle 5: Landscape

Landscaped communal spaces are provided along the through-site link (approved under the SSDA), at the rear of 21 George Street, and on upper levels. These are usable and functional that spaces will provide amenity and opportunities for passive recreation for residents and visitors.

Principle 6: Amenity

The proposal achieves a level of residential amenity consistent with the Apartment Design Guide, incorporating adequate setbacks to minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts and provide solar access. Solar diagrams confirm acceptable impacts on the surrounding area.

Principle 7: Safety

Safety and security are maintained through clear, secure entrances, passive surveillance from balconies and common spaces, and basement parking layouts compliant with Australian Standards. Safety and security aspects remain unchanged from the SSDA.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The development offers a diverse mix of apartments sizes, and includes 80 in-fill affordable housing units under the management of a community housing provider. Communal open spaces, through-site links and landscaping encourage social interaction and community engagement.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The proposal demonstrates a high standard of architectural design, using varied materials, colours, and external finishes that complement the existing context and desired future character of the town centre.

Conclusion

Council has evaluated the proposal in generally accordance with the design principles (1-9) for residential apartment development above and it is considered satisfactory.

Apartment Design Guide (ADG) assessment

As the proposed development contains a residential flat building of three or more storeys and four or more dwellings, the provisions of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) are applicable. The ADG contains objectives, design criteria and design guidelines for residential apartment development.

As Currently Approved

The development, as approved, was assessed by the NSW DPHI against the relevant design principles of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The table below presents information from the State Significant Development Assessment Report for SSD-69615996, dated December 2024, showing the approved development’s consistency with relevant design principles:

Relevant ADG Criteria	Consideration
3A Site Analysis Site analysis illustrates that design decisions have been based on opportunities and constraints of the site conditions and their relationship to the surrounding context.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
3B Orientation Building types and layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development. Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid-winter.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
3C Public Domain Interface Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security. Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
3D Communal and Public Open Space Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter).	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report.
3E Deep Soil Zones Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements: Minimum dimensions of 6m and 7% of the site area.	Does not numerically comply with the ADG recommendation for 7% of the site to be provided as deep soil zones with minimum dimensions of 6 metres. However, it was considered acceptable by the Department, given the site’s high-density location within Burwood Town Centre and the provision of approximately 427m² of deep soil through landscaping and pervious paving.
3F Building Separation & Visual Privacy Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy. Site and building design elements increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space.	Does not numerically comply with building separation requirements. Council initially raised concern in a submission that the proposed setbacks did not provide adequate amenity to adjoining properties and that screened windows in the development do not provide adequate amenity to future residents. In response, the applicant noted that: ·    the east-facing windows on Building B create visual interest on the eastern facade and were not provided for essential amenity to the apartments, noting that habitable rooms have a primary north and southern aspect; ·    the addition of screening hoods on the east facing windows of Building B would ensure privacy and reduce opportunities for overlooking between 19 George Street and Building B; ·    the side setbacks of Building B are consistent with a previous urban design study undertaken by Council to demonstrate development potential of George Street, and which has since been relied on for other development on George Street; and ·    future development of 19 George Street can be undertaken with a blank wall to its western boundary as bedrooms and living areas can be oriented to the north, east and south. Following this clarification, Council was satisfied with the additional screening to provide privacy between Building B and the future development of 19 George Street withdrew its objections. As a result, the DPHI was satisfied that the development provided an appropriate level of visual privacy and building separation for future residents and surrounding properties
3G Pedestrian Access to Entries Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain Access, entries and pathways are accessible and easy to identify Large sites provide pedestrian links for access to streets and connection to destinations	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
3H Vehicle Access Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
3J Bicycle and Car Parking Car parking is provided based on 800m proximity of a railway station or light rail stop in metropolitan Sydney. The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4A Solar and Daylight Access Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4B Natural Ventilation At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4C Ceiling Heights These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4D Apartment Size and Layout Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4E Private Open Space and Balconies All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows. The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4F Common Circulation and Spaces The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight. For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.	Does not numerically comply. The ADG recommends that for buildings 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments, sharing a single lift is 40 (1:40). Building A provides four lifts for 252 apartments (ratio of 1:63), while Buildings B and C comply. The Department reviewed the applicant’s Vertical Transport Study and was satisfied that the proposed lift configuration is acceptable, given adequate travel times, speed, and wait times.
4G Storage Adequate, well-designed storage is provided in each apartment.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report (was addressed via a condition of consent)
4H Acoustic Privacy and 4J Noise and Pollution Noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout. Noise impacts are mitigated within apartments through layout and acoustic treatments. Appropriate noise shielding or attenuation techniques for the building design, construction and choice of materials are used to mitigate noise transmission.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4K Apartment Mix A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future. The apartment mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4L Ground Floor Apartments Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located. Design of ground floor apartments delivers amenity and safety for residents.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4M Facades Building facades provide visual interest along the street while respecting the character of the local area. Building functions are expressed by the façade.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4N Roof Design Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Roof design incorporates sustainability features.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4O Landscape Design and 4P Planting on Structures Landscape design is viable and sustainable. Landscape design contributes to the streetscape and amenity. Appropriate soil profiles are provided. Plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance. Planting on structures contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4Q Universal Design Universal design features are included in apartment design to promote flexible housing for all community members. A variety of apartments with adaptable designs are provided. Apartment layouts are flexible and accommodate a range of lifestyle needs.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4T Awning and Signage Awnings are well located and complement and integrate with the building design. Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4U Energy Efficiency Development incorporates passive environmental design. Development incorporates passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer. Adequate natural ventilation minimises the need for mechanical ventilation.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4V Water Management and Conservation Potable water use is minimised. Urban stormwater is treated on site before being discharged to receiving waters. Flood management systems are integrated into site design.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4W Waste Management Waste storage facilities are designed to minimise impacts on the streetscape, building entry and amenity of residents. Domestic waste is minimised by providing safe and convenient source separation and recycling.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report
4X Building Maintenance Building design detail provides protection from weathering. Systems and access enable ease of maintenance. Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.	Consistent, as demonstrated in the SSDA Assessment Report

As Proposed

Development consent must not be granted to residential apartment development, and a development consent for residential apartment development must not be modified, unless the consent authority has considered the ADG. The proposed development has been considered against the design principles in Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG in table below:

Relevant ADG Criteria	Consideration
3A Site Analysis Site analysis illustrates that design decisions have been based on opportunities and constraints of the site conditions and their relationship to the surrounding context.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA.
3B Orientation Building types and layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development. Overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid-winter.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA Shadow diagrams and solar analysis submitted with the application demonstrate that overshadowing of neighbouring properties during mid-winter is not excessive.
3C Public Domain Interface Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security. Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
3D Communal and Public Open Space Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter).	Consistent - the proposal includes 48.5% of the site area used for communal open space, an increase of 7sqm from the approved development. Communal areas in Buildings A and B have been relocated to higher levels, improving solar access. In Building A, communal open space will be split across two levels (Levels 36 and 37).
3E Deep Soil Zones Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements: Minimum dimensions of 6m and 7% of the site area.	Considered acceptable – unchanged from the approved SSDA
3F Building Separation & Visual Privacy Adequate building separation distances are shared equitably between neighbouring sites, to achieve reasonable levels of external and internal visual privacy. Site and building design elements increase privacy without compromising access to light and air and balance outlook and views from habitable rooms and private open space.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
3G Pedestrian Access to Entries Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain Access, entries and pathways are accessible and easy to identify Large sites provide pedestrian links for access to streets and connection to destinations	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA No changes to building entries, pedestrian access, pathways or links.
3H Vehicle Access Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
3J Bicycle and Car Parking Car parking is provided based on 800m proximity of a railway station or light rail stop in metropolitan Sydney. The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.	Basement parking arrangements are generally consistent with the car parking requirements of  Chapter 2, Division 1 In-Fill Affordable Housing of the Housing SEPP, and bicycle parking requirements of Burwood Council’s DCP. Moreover, the Applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report, prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 22.07.25, and a supplementary Traffic & Parking Matters letter prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 12.12.25, to support the proposal.
4A Solar and Daylight Access Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4B Natural Ventilation At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4C Ceiling Heights These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4D Apartment Size and Layout Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4E Private Open Space and Balconies All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows. The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4F Common Circulation and Spaces The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight. For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.	Does not numerically comply. The ADG recommends that for buildings 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments, sharing a single lift is 40 (1:40). Building A provides four lifts for 262 apartments (ratio of 1:65.5), The proposal provides a minor variation from the SSDA approved ratio of 1:63 apartments, which was considered acceptable by the DPHI. Given the difference with the approved SSDA is minor, Council raises no objections in the circumstances. Building B is non-compliant with a ratio of 1:41.5. Given the minor nature of the variation, Council raises no objections in the circumstances. Building C remains compliant with a ratio of 1:32.
4G Storage Adequate, well-designed storage is provided in each apartment.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4H Acoustic Privacy and 4J Noise and Pollution Noise transfer is minimised through the siting of buildings and building layout. Noise impacts are mitigated within apartments through layout and acoustic treatments. Appropriate noise shielding or attenuation techniques for the building design, construction and choice of materials are used to mitigate noise transmission.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4K Apartment Mix A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future. The apartment mix is distributed to suitable locations within the building.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4L Ground Floor Apartments Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located. Design of ground floor apartments delivers amenity and safety for residents.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA No changes to ground floor apartments.
4M Facades Building facades provide visual interest along the street while respecting the character of the local area. Building functions are expressed by the façade.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4N Roof Design Roof treatments are integrated into the building design and positively respond to the street. Opportunities to use roof space for residential accommodation and open space are maximised. Roof design incorporates sustainability features.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4O Landscape Design and 4P Planting on Structures Landscape design is viable and sustainable. Landscape design contributes to the streetscape and amenity. Appropriate soil profiles are provided. Plant growth is optimised with appropriate selection and maintenance. Planting on structures contributes to the quality and amenity of communal and public open spaces.	Consistent – Proposed landscape plans prepared by Canvas Landscape Architects, ref, SSD-L104-BA, Rev. B, are satisfactory.
4Q Universal Design Universal design features are included in apartment design to promote flexible housing for all community members. A variety of apartments with adaptable designs are provided. Apartment layouts are flexible and accommodate a range of lifestyle needs.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4T Awning and Signage Awnings are well located and complement and integrate with the building design. Signage responds to the context and desired streetscape character.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA
4U Energy Efficiency Development incorporates passive environmental design. Development incorporates passive solar design to optimise heat storage in winter and reduce heat transfer in summer. Adequate natural ventilation minimises the need for mechanical ventilation.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA The proposal meets BASIX requirements and achieves an average 7-Star NatHERs rating.
4V Water Management and Conservation Potable water use is minimised. Urban stormwater is treated on site before being discharged to receiving waters. Flood management systems are integrated into site design.	Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA Council’s development engineers reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns regarding stormwater management, as the extent of roof surface areas remains unchanged
4W Waste Management Waste storage facilities are designed to minimise impacts on the streetscape, building entry and amenity of residents. Domestic waste is minimised by providing safe and convenient source separation and recycling.	Consistent – additional bins within the designated bin storage areas are provided to cater for the additional twenty-nine (29) residential apartments across the three buildings.
4X Building Maintenance Building design detail provides protection from weathering. Systems and access enable ease of maintenance. Material selection reduces ongoing maintenance costs.		Consistent – unchanged from the approved SSDA

Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012 (BLEP)

The BLEP came into effect on 9 November 2012 and contains a number of controls including development standards which apply to the proposed development. A summary of the assessment of the application against the relevant provisions within the BLEP is provided below.

Permissibility of the development in the zone

Land Use Zone: MU1 Mixed Use.

13. Figure 11: (above) Zoning Map from the BLEP, showing the site within the MU1 Mixed Use zone.

Proposal: The proposed development considered a residential flat building, which are permitted in the MU1 Mixed Use zone with consent.

Compliance with relevant BLEP development standards

Note: Clause 16 of the Housing SEPP establishes the applicable controls for building height and floor space ratio.

Burwood LEP 2012	Proposal	Compliance
4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards
(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. (3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating – (a) the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and, (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.	The application seeks variations to the development standards set out in clauses 16(1) and 16(2) of the Housing SEPP. The applicant has submitted written requests to vary the development standards, pursuant to clause 4.6 of the BLEP.	Refer to Note 1 – Variation of the floor space ratio development standard; and Note 2 – Variation to the minimum affordable housing component, above in this report
5.1 Relevant acquisition authority
Land reserved to be acquired for public purposes	The subject site is not identified on the Land Reservation Acquisition Maps.	N/A
5.10 Heritage Conservation
(1) Objectives The objectives of this clause are as follows— (a)  to conserve the environmental heritage of Burwood, (b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, (c) to conserve archaeological sites, (d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.	The site does not contain a heritage item and is not located in a heritage conservation area. The site is not adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of any heritage items or heritage conservation areas. No Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance are identified on the site.	N/A
6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils
(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.	The subject site is affected by Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. However, there are no works proposed within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian height Datum.	Yes
6.5   Design excellence in Zones E1 and MU1
(1)  The objective of this clause is to deliver the highest standard of architectural, landscape and urban design. (2)  This clause applies to development involving the erection of a new building of 3 or more storeys on land in Zone E1 Local Centre or Zone MU1 Mixed Use. (3)  Development consent must not be granted for development to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development exhibits design excellence.	The development is subject to this clause and overall is considered consistent with its requirements.	Yes, Please refer to Note 4 – Clause 6.5 Design excellence in Zones E1 and MU1 of the BLEP below in this report.

Note 4 – Clause 6.5 Design excellence in Zones E1 and MU1 of the BLEP

The objective of clause 6.5 of the BLEP is to deliver the highest standard of architectural, landscape and urban design. This clause applies to development involving the erection of a new building of 3 or more storeys on land in Zone E1 Local Centre or Zone MU1 Mixed Use. Development consent must not be granted for development to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development exhibits design excellence. The application was referred to the Burwood Design Review Panel (DRP) for review and comment.

The DRP raised no fundamental objection to the proposed additional height. The key recommendations provided by the DRP to the applicant are summarised below in points 1 - 5. The Applicant’s provided responses to the recommendations in a letter from Urban Link Architects, dated 12.12.25, and are also summarised below:

1)   Overshadowing & Solar Access: Verify that the additional overshadowing is acceptable, particularly for existing and future residential properties, and ensure this is clearly documented.

Applicant’s response: Shadow and sun-eye diagrams for the winter solstice (21 June), comparing approved and proposed conditions, have been provided. The additional overshadowing primarily affects commercial properties and the approved Burwood RSL redevelopment, with minor impact on private open spaces of R2 dwellings east of Shaftesbury Road after 2:30 pm. These dwellings retain solar access between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm, and the impact is considered negligible. The applicant notes that the long-term vision for these properties is higher-density residential development.

2)   Rooftop & Skyline Treatment: Enhance the architectural resolution of tower tops to deliver a cohesive, well-detailed skyline, with careful integration and screening of plant and services.

Applicant’s response: Rooftop treatments remain consistent with the approved design. Additional floor plates have been inserted mid-tower without altering rooftop plant or services. Building B incorporates mid-level service zones to avoid excessive rooftop allocation for plant.

3)   Artwork / Blank Wall Strategy: Review the proposed mural/artwork to confirm its location, visibility, and cost are justified, and ensure it is integrated with the building design using durable materials.

Applicant’s response: The applicant agrees that a painted mural is excessive and not durable and suggests replacing it with grooved, patterned precast integrated into façade. Suggests a condition to remove painted artwork and adopt durable, low maintenance public art treatment.

Note: Council has recommended that a condition of approval be imposed so that the proposed public art work on the West Elevation of the building at 21 George Street should not be painted art work, but rather use durable materials that will not require regular maintenance and repainting.

4)   Lobby Quality (Building B): Where feasible, improve the arrival experience through modest increases in space and enhancements to glazing and detailing to better serve residents.

Applicant’s response: No changes are proposed. The applicant acknowledges the lobby is compact but notes higher than standard floor-to-floor height.

5)   Documentation: Clearly identify all modifications and provide easy-to-understand comparative diagrams (approved vs proposed) for assessment and future reference

Applicant’s response: The applicant states that all changes are clouded and labelled on the plans and comparative diagrams have been provided to distinguish approved vs amended elements.

Conclusion

Council has carefully considered the recommendations provided by the DRP, and the applicant’s response to each. Overall, Council is satisfied that the proposed development, subject to appropriate conditions, exhibits design excellence and is consistent with clause 6.5 of the BLEP.

(ii)        Any proposed instrument (Draft LEP etc.)

There are no draft planning instruments for consideration.

(iii)       Any development control plan

Burwood Development Control Plan 2013 (BDCP)

The Burwood Development Control Plan (BDCP) applies to the proposed development. A summary of the assessment of the application against the parts of the BDCP is shown in the table below:

Part 3.2 General Building Design Controls in Centres and Corridors
Issue	Requirement/standard			Proposal	Compliance
Building design, roofs and roof tops	Design excellence encouraged; high quality materials and finishes; roof design to contribute to overall design and performance outcomes.			The proposed external materials, colour palette, finishes, and roof design remain substantially consistent with those approved under the SSDA. This continuity is considered satisfactory and aligns with the previously endorsed design intent.	Yes
Street front activities, building access, safety and security	Security measures to form integral part of building; ground floor integrated with streetscape; appropriate building entrances and clear street address; appropriate mail box provision; casual surveillance to be provided by design			The proposed security measures, building entrances, street addressing, and mailbox configuration remain in essence unchanged from those approved under the SSDA.	Yes
Lobbies and internal circulation	Lobbies must be designed for natural ventilation and natural lighting; common area corridors must be minimum of 2m width			Lobbies and internal circulation within the building remains compliant and consistent with the approved SSDA. The applicant has acknowledged that the lobby of Building B is compact but notes that it provides a higher than standard floor-to-floor height.	Yes
Access and mobility	Compliance with Australian Standards for adaptable units and car parking accessibility			The proposal increases the number of adaptable units from 40 to 43, and ‘liveable housing silver level’ units from 80 to 83. A standard condition of approval is imposed to ensure that the development complies with all applicable Australian Standards.	Yes
Part 3.3 Area Based Controls – Burwood Town Centre and Burwood Road North
Issue	Requirement/standard			Proposal	Compliance
Aims for the Burwood Town Centre and the contiguous Burwood Road North area	▪ To provide for a vibrant centre with a level of amenity that reflects its Major Centre status. ▪ To provide for a built form that supports appropriate urban design outcomes ▪ To ensure a building scale that complements existing heritage items and human-scale streetscape environments. ▪ To deliver a high standard of acoustic measures for residents within the Burwood Town Centre, High and Medium Density Areas, and Active Precincts – Zones R1. R3, E1 and MU1. ▪ To enable the delivery of housing in mixed use areas that include entertainment and other noise generating activities			The proposal is reflective of the Major Centre status of the town centre, being a high-density residential tower development. The additional residential apartments proposed are located at the top of the approved buildings and will maintain reasonable amenity for future residents of the town centre. The scale of the building at ground level remains unchanged. The proposal has minimal impact on the human-scale streetscapes of Victoria St and George St. The proposed changes are to the residential component of the approved development, and not any entertainment and other noise generating activities or land uses. The proposal delivers additional high-density housing in central location within a mixed-use major centre.	Yes
Building Height Plane (BHP)	The BLEP controls height through the maximum permissible building heights established in the Height of Buildings Map for the whole LGA, and through the application in addition of a Building Height Plane (BHP) in the Burwood Town Centre.			The maximum building height under the BLEP is set by Building Height Plane (BHP) lines in the Burwood Town Centre. The BHP provides that development must not exceed 36 degrees measured at a height of 1m above ground level from the eastern side of Shaftesbury Road. The BHP aims to maintain the amenity of land outside and adjoining the Burwood Town Centre and provide such land with adequate solar access. Under clause 16(3) of the Housing SEPP, which takes precedent over the BLEP height provision, the maximum building height for the development is 30% above the maximum permissible building height under the BLEP, measured from ground level to the point where the BHP intersects with the site. The development does not exceed the maximum permissible height prescribed by clause 16(3) of the Housing SEPP, as discussed above in Note 3 - Maximum Building Height	Yes
Building Separation/Frontage Overview (Commercial Core and Middle Ring Areas)	Building separation provides appropriate levels of amenity for the private and public domain.			The proposed building separation remains consistent with the approved SSDA and maintains consistency with the previously endorsed level of visual privacy and separation for future residents and surrounding properties.	Yes
Communal Open Space (Commercial Core and Middle Ring Areas)	To provide communal passive and active recreational opportunities. To provide communal open space that facilitates soft landscaping. To ensure that communal open space is consolidated, configured and designed to be usable and attractive.			The proposal includes 48.5% of the site area used for communal open space, an increase of 7sqm from the approved development. Communal areas in Buildings A and B have been relocated to higher levels, improving solar access. In Building A, communal open space will be split across two levels (Levels 36 and 37). Vegetation is provided through landscaped areas and planter boxes positioned around upper-level communal areas and within rooftop communal spaces, creating visual relief and greenery.	Yes
Part 6.2 Waste Management
Issue	Requirement/standard			Proposal	Compliance
Waste Management – additional bins	This aim of this BDCP section is to achieve effective waste management and minimisation in the Burwood local government area.			Building A 2 additional bins (1 waste and 1 recycling bin) added to basement level. Building B 2 additional bins (1 waste and 1 recycling bin) added to ground level. Building C 2 additional new bins (1 waste and 1 recycling bin) added to basement level. Additional condition of consent Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Operational Waste Management Plan for the development shall be updated and submitted to Council for approval by Council’s Manager City Development. The revised Waste Management Plan must incorporate the amendments approved under the Section 4.55(1A) modification to development consent DA.2019.91, approved by Council on 23.10.25, and reflect the changes approved under DA.2025.66.	Yes
Part 6.5 Stormwater Management
Issue		Requirement/standard	Proposal		Compliance
Stormwater drainage		Council has adopted a separate Stormwater Management Code that aims to: ▪ To preserve and protect the amenity and property of existing residents, property owners and the community. ▪ To ensure the safety of residents and the community. ▪ To meet reasonable expectations and statutory requirements for the development of properties. ▪ To protect the physical environment and receiving waters of catchments.	Council’s development engineers reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns regarding stormwater management, as the extent of roof surface areas remains unchanged. Additional condition of consent Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, stormwater drainage design plans for the development approved under State Significant Development consent SSD 69615996 must be updated to ensure consistency with development consent DA.2025.66. The Applicant must provide the Principal Certifier with a copy of the updated stormwater drainage design plans, prepared and certified by a suitably qualified Engineer experienced in stormwater drainage design.		Yes

(iv)       The Regulations

The Regulation underpins the day-to-day operation of the NSW planning system. The Regulation guides the processes, plans, public consultation, impact assessment and decisions made by local councils, the Department of Planning and others.  The application is accompanied by a statement prepared by a suitably qualified designer in accordance with Clause 29 Residential apartment development. The proposal is consistent with the Regulations.

(b)     The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

The proposed development is permissible in the MU1 Mixed Use zone with consent under the provisions of the BLEP and the Housing SEPP. It is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone and the objective of Part 2 Development for affordable housing, Division 1 In-fill affordable housing which is ‘to facilitate the delivery of new in-fill affordable housing to meet the needs of very low, low and moderate income households’. Potential adverse impacts associated with the development have been appropriately mitigated through the imposition of conditions of consent, as detailed in Attachment 1.

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development

The application proposes alterations and additions to an approved development. Internal referrals, submissions, and previous approvals have been taken into account as part of the assessment of the proposal. The assessment provided in this report demonstrates that the proposal is appropriate for the site, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent. In addition, the assessing officer viewed the site and observed no evidence to suggest the site is unsuitable for the proposed development.

(d)     Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations

Please refer to the ‘Community Consultation’ section of this report below.

(e)     The public interest

The application proposes twenty-nine (29) additional residential apartments, including five (5) additional affordable housing apartments, in a high-density town centre environment which is well-served by transport, services, and employment. It provides a public benefit by increasing housing supply during a housing shortage, including increasing the amount of affordable housing on the site. Appropriate conditions of consent will ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner. Overall, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA)

A draft VPA was presented to and endorsed at a meeting of Council on 9^th December 2025. The draft VPA requires the developer to pay a monetary contribution to Council towards the provision of public facilities. A condition of consent requires the VPA to be executed and its terms met prior the issue of a Construction Certificate associated with the approval.

Community Consultation

The application was publicly notified between 1^st October 2025 and 29^th October 2025, in accordance with the requirements Burwood Council’s Community Engagement Plan. Council received two (2) unique submissions, as they are defined in the ‘Local Planning Panels Direction – Development Applications and Applications to Modify Development Consents’, issued under section 9.1 of the EP&A Act, dated 6.5.2024.

The submissions have been reviewed and carefully considered as part of the assessment process. The submissions identified several significant concerns regarding the DA, summarised below:

1.   Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Concerns

That the proposal is an overdevelopment, adding excessive height, bulk, and residential units beyond what the existing planning controls and bonus provisions allow. The submissions assert that local infrastructure and traffic networks are already under strain, and that the additional units will worsen congestion and pedestrian safety. The submissions argue that current traffic management around the site and public transport upgrades are insufficient.

Council comment: The proposed additional storeys to the approved development are consistent with the expected built form and character of the ‘commercial core’ of the Burwood Town Centre. The site is suitable to accommodate increased density, and the proposal aligns with the desired future character for the precinct. While additional floor space ratio more than the 30% bonus provision in the Housing SEPP is sought under this application, the approved maximum building height for the development will not change. The proposal will deliver 29 additional residential units, including 5 additional affordable housing units, in a strategic location at a time when there is a housing shortage. Proposed traffic and parking arrangements are addressed in this report in detail and are considered satisfactory.

2.   Affordable Housing Compliance

That the proposal fails to comply with Housing SEPP 2021, in that:

a)    The DA seeks a 40% floor space bonus, rather than a maximum of 30%, as per clause 16(1).

b)    It provides less than the required affordable housing component (13.9% vs 15% minimum);

c)    It attempts to use a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to offset affordable housing obligations under the SEPP, which is considered an improper and unacceptable planning approach.

Council comment: It is acknowledged that the proposal seeks a 40% floor space bonus, rather than a maximum of 30%, as per clause 16(1). The application has submitted a clause 4.6 variation request addressing this departure from the development standard. Amended plans were requested from the applicant to ensure that at least 15% of the development’s total gross floor area is dedicated as affordable housing.

Council considers that using a VPA to offset affordable housing obligations under the Housing SEPP is an improper and unacceptable planning approach. In Council’s view, a VPA is a separate matter from a request to vary a development standard under Clause 4.6 of the BLEP, and the execution of a VPA cannot be relied upon as an environmental planning ground to justify such a variation. Council communicated this position to the applicant in November 2025 and requested that a revised Clause 4.6 variation statement be submitted.

3.   Traffic and Parking Impacts

The increased number of car parking spaces and reallocation of visitor spaces to residential spaces will exacerbate congestion on George Street and Shaftesbury Road. The assumptions of the submitted traffic report are questioned in that it utilises the affordable housing parking rates in the Housing SEPP, despite no additional affordable housing being provided and that it underestimates existing traffic conditions and fails to account for future traffic generation from other developments.

Council Comment: The proposal will provide an additional 29 residential units and 13 additional car parking spaces. A total of 162 bicycle parking spaces and 28 motorbike parking spaces will be provided, distributed across the three buildings. The Applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report, prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 22.07.25, and a supplementary Traffic & Parking Matters letter prepared by Varga Traffic Planning, Ref. 25223, dated 12.12.25, to support the proposal. Proposed car parking arrangements are addressed in this report and are considered satisfactory overall, when considering the site’s central and accessible location within the Burwood Town Centre.

4.   Clause 4.6 Variation

That the DA relies on a clause 4.6 variation request that is not well-founded, attempting to address multiple non-compliances in one request. The variation request does not resolve the failure of the proposal to meet SEPP objectives for affordable housing.

Council Comment: The application seeks variations to the development standards under clauses 16(1) and 16(2) of the Housing SEPP. To support this, the applicant has submitted an amended clause 4.6 variation request for clause 16(1) and a separate clause 4.6 variation request for clause 16(2). These matters are addressed in detail in this report.

5.   Solar Access and Amenity

That the proposed additional building height will cause significant overshadowing of nearby hotel accommodation and rooftop dining areas, atrium lightwells and future accommodation tower, thereby reducing amenity and contradicting design expectations under the approved SSD.

Council Comment: Shadow and sun-eye diagrams for the winter solstice (21 June), comparing approved and proposed conditions, have been provided by the applicant. The additional overshadowing will primarily affect commercial properties and the approved Burwood RSL redevelopment. The additional overshadowing compared to the approved SSD is relatively minor for most of the day on 21 June, as illustrated in the shadow diagrams and solar studies prepared by Urban Link Architects (Rev. I, dated 16.07.2025). Furthermore, given that further high-density tower developments of similar bulk and scale are anticipated within the town centre over the short to medium term, some degree of additional overshadowing within the town centre area is expected.

Referrals

The application was referred to the following internal Council departments:

Building Surveying – no objections received, subject to conditions.

Traffic and Parking – no objections received, subject to conditions.

Waste Management – no objections received, new condition imposed.

Design Review Panel (DRP) – DRP advice has been considered, as has the applicant’s response. Condition of approval has been imposed requiring the public art strategy to be revised as per the DRP’s recommendation.

Landscaping - no objections received, no additional or amended conditions required.

Development Engineering – no objections received, new condition imposed.

The proposal was not required to be externally referred.

Conclusion

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant matters for consideration under clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as detailed above in this report. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval (subject to conditions).

Recommendation(s)

That development application no. DA.2025.66, which proposes alterations and additions to add additional storeys and residential apartments to three multi-storey buildings within an approved mixed-use development, at 28-34 Victoria Street, 21 George Street and 17 George Street, Burwood, be approved subject to the conditions of approval contained in Attachment 1.

Attachments

1⇩     Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions - DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

2⇩     Attachment 2 - Statement of Enviromental Effects & Clause 4.6 Variation Requests DA.2025.66

3⇩     Attachment 3 - Overall Site Plans, Solar Studies and Landscape Plans DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

4⇩     Attachment 4 - Architectural Plans - Building A DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

5⇩     Attachment 5 - Architectural Plans - Building B DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

6⇩     Attachment 6 - Architectural Plans - Building C DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions - DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Statement of Enviromental Effects & Clause 4.6 Variation Requests DA.2025.66

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Overall Site Plans, Solar Studies and Landscape Plans DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Architectural Plans - Building A DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Architectural Plans - Building B DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026

Item Number DA1/26 - Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Architectural Plans - Building C DA.2025.66 - 12 January 2026