Non-compliant proposals in North Sydney rarely clear council without a legal fight. But Sydney developer HFO Capital has pulled it off at 93 Kurraba Road—securing approval to take its 19 luxury apartments higher and wider than regulated in a tightly held harbourside pocket, without going near the Land and Environment Court. North Sydney is one of the more complex LGAs in the state for developers.  Vocal resident groups, strict heritage overlays and tight controls on built form often make approvals difficult. When projects hit resistance, developers tend to escalate—to court or to state planning panels with the power to overrule local decisions. But HFO Capital did neither. Instead, they stayed at the table, made their case and walked away with approval—without sacrificing height or yield. According to HFO Capital director of property Karl Davis, when they received the first written RFI (Request for Information), “we did think LEC was inevitable, as we weren’t prepared to accept strict compliance with height and site coverage given we believed the objectives of those controls were already being met with no adverse impacts”.  “We even started preliminary discussions with our legal team, which we in fact told council. It was only after we decided to open a dialogue with the council that it became apparent it wasn’t a lost cause,” he tells The Urban Developer . Pushing limits, gaining approval The 1737sq m site at 93 Kurraba Road is just north of the Kurraba Point Ferry Wharf, along the well-known Foreshore Walk. The irregularly shaped, steeply sloping parcel has unobstructed harbour views, surrounded by waterfront mansions and early 20th-century apartments. It’s occupied by two dated 1970s four and five-storey apartment blocks comprising 15 apartments. ▲ The existing 1970s apartment blocks at 93 Kurraba Road. Both will be demolished to make way for the approved 19-apartment development. The DA, lodged in June of 2024, exceeded the 12m height limit with a maximum height of 13.59m, and breached site coverage control, proposing 48.9 per cent where 45 per cent is permitted. Although site coverage applies as a non-statutory DCP control, in the absence of an FSR it is typically enforced strictly by the council to control density. Designed by SJB with landscaping by Dangar Barin Smith, the five-storey scheme above two levels of basement parking was designed to work with the site’s slope and context, rather than reduce yield to meet strict controls. The council’s design review panel flagged concerns early. Dozens of objections followed, raising traffic, overshadowing and visual impacts on Nutcote—the heritage-listed former home of author May Gibbs. Still, HFO Capital held the line. It submitted a Clause 4.6 variation, arguing the proposal met the intent of the planning controls despite its exceedances and providing detailed justifications for the proposed site coverage. “The key was demonstrating that the variation still achieved the planning objectives of the height control while responding sensitively to the site’s unique conditions,” Davis says. “The site has a significant slope and irregular shape, which exaggerates the numerical exceedance in parts of the building that are actually well screened and don’t create adverse impacts.” Working with, not against SJB senior associate David Maes says the project’s design reflects a strong understanding of context and impact. “Comprehensive documentation and consistent responsiveness to council requests were maintained throughout,” he says. “RFIs were addressed thoroughly, with input from all relevant consultants, not just the architect or planner. Early and ongoing engagement with council helped build trust and supported a collaborative approval process.” Several design decisions helped build confidence with council without compromising on density. “The design focused on delivering high quality amenity for residents, including enhanced communal spaces both indoors and outdoors in response to feedback,” Maes says. “Further testing was undertaken to clearly demonstrate the proposal’s minimal impact. Parking layouts were revised in line with council input, supported by additional traffic consultant assessments. “Heritage advice was also incorporated, resulting in a revised material palette that better respected the site’s context.” ▲ The Kurraba Point peninsula with the 93 Kurraba Road site highlighted. A key turning point, Maes says, was “council’s early positive response during initial discussions and the pre DA process”.  “This set a collaborative tone, which was reinforced through open, continuous communication and prompt, detailed responses at every stage of the approval process.” Community tension The project drew 42 objections. Concerns included parking and traffic, bulk, privacy and the visual relationship with Nutcote. “Even before submitting our DA, I met personally with many of the neighbours, including Nutcote,” Davis says. “We were aware the community had been very engaged on other projects in the area and so we wanted to get on the front foot by clearly communicating our plans early and listening to their concerns so we could consider them in the final design.” ▲ Nutcote, the heritage-listed former home of author May Gibbs, is near the approved development site. Heritage impacts were reviewed and the council’s heritage officer ultimately supported the revised plans. “The site sits within a heritage context but isn’t itself a heritage item nor is it part of the heritage conservation area,” Davis says. “That said, Kurraba Point is a distinctive area, and from the beginning it was important to us that our design drew on local heritage elements in a respectful way.” Not the norm but not alone North Sydney isn’t known for waving through non-compliant proposals—but it’s also not impossible. Cbus and Galileo’s East Walker Street project nearly landed in court before being sold to Aland. In Crows Nest, Barry Nesbitt’s Bazem Properties' tower only proceeded after a state-led rezoning. But other projects, such as Kurraba Residences , have made it through council with persistence—and concessions. Davis says the Kurraba Road approval reflects timing and process. “I think it’s a blend of both,” he says. “Fundamentally, our non-compliances were justified and there were no adverse impacts. “One of the appeals of the court process is the defined timeline, which can be valuable in IRR-driven businesses looking to avoid unforeseen delays. “That said, we found the process with the council to be efficient, with the DA approved in under 12 months from submission. “By NSW standards, for a project of this scale, that’s a good result but it does require staying on top of the council and being proactive with your responses. “I think the council are receptive to these efforts and hopefully our experience encourages more of that.” What’s next HFO Capital is now considering its options with the site. “We’re pleased to have secured approval for a well-resolved scheme,” Davis says. “Now we’re considering the best way to realise its potential—whether that’s delivering it ourselves or exploring other options.” ▲ A before-and-after showing view impact with the current buildings ( top ) and the approved structure. Nearby, SJB also designed the Kurraba Residences—developed by Thirdi Group in partnership with Phoenix Property Investors. This project took nearly three years to gain approval and faced similar scrutiny around height and bulk. It eventually sold around $90 million worth of apartments off the plan, The full range spanned $2.5 million to $50 million, according to Thirdi managing director Luke Berry.
