Two projects in inner Sydney suburbs will move ahead after separate rulings in the NSW Land and Environment Court.
At Petersham, plans for a distinctive eight-storey shoptop by developer Seashell Group for its site in Sydney’s Inner West were filed in 2024.
The project, at 37-39 Fisher Street at Petersham, 8km from the Sydney CBD, comprises 25 apartments above a ground-floor health services facility.
The site is zoned as a local centre under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan, which allows shoptop housing on the site 300m from the Petersham train station.
Designed by Contreras Earl Architecture, the project includes parking across three basement levels for residents and visitors.
The Inner West Council had rejected the project, saying at a meeting in late 2024 that the architectural form was not appropriate to the area, calling it “out-of-character” for the suburb.
Seashell subsequently lodged an appeal with the LEC in December 2024.
It held a conciliation conference with the Council, reaching an agreement on amended architectural and landscape plans.
The court was satisfied that the project was eligible for increased height and floor space ratio, as it includes an affordable housing component of four apartments and upheld Seashell’s appeal.
Meanwhile, Ceerose’s plans for 25 apartments in a part-four, part-eight-storey residential building at Potts Point were also waved through by the court.
The developer, led by Edward Doueihi, filed plans for the 117 Victoria Street site in 2023.
Ceerose sought to replace an existing building built in 1964, with a 22-apartment block designed by Koichi Takada Architects.
However, its development application was deemed refused by the City of Sydney.
While it did not manage to assess the project in time, the council later criticised the lack of consideration for the retention of existing affordable housing, and the lack of diversity in the housing mix.
The developer, under its ERD 1 Pty Ltd development vehicle, filed an appeal against the rejection in October 2024.
It renotified amended plans in June this year for the $36.5-million project. Those plans included seven units allocated as affordable with Bridge Housing as the registered housing provider.
After the action had been launched in the LEC, the Council and Ceerose reached an agreement and asked for the case to be re-allocated for conciliation.
The court agreed that the height request due to the steep topography of the site and the design of the building in the surrounding heritage conservation area was justified. It upheld Ceerose’s appeal.
