Six amended plans fail to rescue Park Road flat-building proposal

Georges River’s planning panel refused DA2026/0146 for 68 - 72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay, after saying the plans lacked AHD levels needed to assess the building’s height.

Council: Georges River Council

Meeting: 17 Sep 2026

Recorded status: rejected


BRIEF

Georges River’s Local Planning Panel unanimously refused DA2026/0146 for a proposed residential flat building at 68 - 72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay. The panel said six amended plans lacked survey information, including AHD levels, needed to assess height from existing ground levels, and rejected a request for deferred commencement consent.


KEY FACTS

- DA2026/0146 proposed demolition works and a residential flat building at Lots A, B and C DP 323668, 68 - 72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay.

- The panel recorded six amended plans, but said they lacked sufficient survey information, including AHD levels.

- The panel refused the applicant’s request for deferred commencement consent.

- The refusal was recorded as unanimous on 17 September 2026.

- Reasons included building height, design excellence, Apartment Design Guide compliance, parking, setbacks, landscaping and site suitability.


ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD

- The record supports reporting a refusal, but it does not establish that the site cannot be developed in future.

- Because the panel said it did not assess the amended plans in detail, the minutes do not provide a complete technical assessment of those later changes.

- The supplied record recommends confirmation of the minutes but does not record adoption of that recommendation.


QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORTING

- Will the applicant lodge a revised development application or submit further material for the site?

- What building height and parking arrangement were proposed in the application considered by the panel?

- Has a later application or separate approval been lodged for 68–72 Park Road?


SOURCE PASSAGES

The panel recorded six amended plans and said they lacked sufficient survey information, including AHD levels.
"Speakers • Chris Tsioulos (consultant on behalf of applicant/owner) Voting of the Panel Members The decision of the Panel was unanimous. Discussion: The applicant/architect addressed the Panel and provided 6 amended plans (elevations and basement parking). The Panel notes that these plans still provide insufficient survey information including no AHD levels to properly determine the height of the development based on 'existing ground levels' and consenquetly whether a Clause 4.6 would be required." (LPP044-26, discussion)

The panel did not assess the amended plans in detail because they had not been properly submitted on the planning portal and assessed by council officers. It rejected the applicant/architect's request for deferred commencement consent and refused DA2026/0146 for demolition works and a residential flat building at Lots A, B and C DP 323668, 68–72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay.
"The Panel did not assess these plans in detail including the new parking plan as they have not been properly submitted on the planning portal and assessed by Council's officers. The applicant/architect also requested that the Panel issue a deferred commencement consent to enable full set of plans to be prepared. The Panel does not agree with this request. Pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Georges River Local Planning Panel, refuses Development Application DA2026/0146 for the demolition works and construction of a residential flat building at Lots A, B & C DP 323668 known as 68-72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay, for the following reasons: 1." (LPP044-26, discussion and refusal)

The minutes record the panel's decision as unanimous and list Chris Tsioulos as a consultant on behalf of the applicant/owner.
"Speakers • Chris Tsioulos (consultant on behalf of applicant/owner) Voting of the Panel Members The decision of the Panel was unanimous. Discussion: The applicant/architect addressed the Panel and provided 6 amended plans (elevations and basement parking)." (LPP044-26, speakers and voting)

Item LPP044-26 concerns 68–72 Park Road, Kogarah Bay, in the minutes of the 17 September 2026 meeting.
""THIS IS THE PRINTED COPY OF THE GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL BUSINESS PAPER, FOR THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT PLEASE VISIT THE GEORGES RIVER WEBSITE: WWW.GEORGESRIVER.NSW.GOV.AU" Minutes of Georges River Local Planning Panel Meeting - 17 September 2026 Page 13 LPP044-26 68-72 Park Road Kogarah Bay (Report by Senior Development Assessment Planner) The Panel carried out an inspection of the site and nearby locality." (Page 13, meeting header and LPP044-26 heading)

The quotation states that the proposed development fails requirements concerning maximum building height, exceptions to development standards, design excellence and consistency with design principles and the Apartment Design Guide.
"The proposed development fails to satisfy Clause 4.3 of the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 with regard to the maximum building height. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 2. The proposed development fails to satisfy Clause 4.6 of the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 with regard to exceptions to development standards. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 3. The proposed development fails to satisfy Clause 6.10 of the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 with regard to Design Excellence. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 4. The proposed development is unsatisfactory in terms of its failure to satisfy Chapter 4, Section 147(1) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, with regard to consistency with the design principles and Apartment Design Guide (ADG) [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]." (LPP044-26, refusal reasons 1–4)

The quotation states that the proposed development fails Apartment Design Guide requirements concerning the public-domain interface, building separation distances and provision of car parking spaces.
"5. The proposed development fails to satisfy Objective 3C-2 of the ADG with regard to the public domain interface. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. "THIS IS THE PRINTED COPY OF THE GEORGES RIVER LOCAL PLANNING PANEL BUSINESS PAPER, FOR THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT PLEASE VISIT THE GEORGES RIVER WEBSITE: WWW.GEORGESRIVER.NSW.GOV.AU" Minutes of Georges River Local Planning Panel Meeting - 17 September 2026 Page 14 6. The proposed development fails to satisfy the Objective and design criteria of 3F-1 of the ADG with regard to the separation distances between buildings. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 7. The proposed development fails to satisfy Part 3J of the ADG with regard to the provision of car parking spaces. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]." (LPP044-26, refusal reasons 5–7)

The quotation states that the proposed development fails Apartment Design Guide requirements concerning private open space for ground-floor apartments, amenity and incidental space in common circulation areas, and street-frontage activation.
"8. The proposed development fails to satisfy the Objective and Design criteria of 4E-1 of the ADG with regard to the private open space requirements for ground floor apartments. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 9. The proposed development fails to satisfy Objective 4F-1 of the ADG with regard to good amenity in common circulation spaces. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 10. The proposed development fails to satisfy Objective 4F-2 of the ADG with regard to the integration incidental space in common circulation spaces. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 11. The proposed development fails to satisfy Objective 4L-1 of the ADG with regard to the Street frontage activation. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]." (LPP044-26, refusal reasons 8–11)

The quotation states that the proposed development fails requirements concerning landscaping, car parking, the Carss Park and Kogarah Bay locality statement, and minimum building setbacks under the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021.
"12. The proposed development fails to satisfy Part 3.3 of the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 with regard to Landscaping. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 13. The proposed development fails to satisfy Part 3.13 of the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 with regard to Car Parking. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 14. The proposed development fails to satisfy Part 5.18 of the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 with regard to the Carss Park and Kogarah Bay locality Statement. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]. 15. The proposed development fails to satisfy Part 6.3.3 of the Georges River Development Control Plan 2021 with regard to minimum building setback requirements. [Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979]." (LPP044-26, refusal reasons 12–15)


SOURCES

https://georgesriver.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2026/09/LPP_17092026_MIN.PDF

https://minutesradar.com/news/georges-river-infocouncil-local-planning-panel-17-sep-2026-17-sep-2026-minutes-68-72-park-road-apartment-proposal-refused-over-height-and-d-0616015bc1/


Prepared from public council minutes using automated drafting and checks. No meeting attendance or interviews are implied. Check the original record and seek comment before republishing claims or analysis. Illustrations are generic, not depictions of actual projects.