AUDAA Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – place of public worship - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites to empower the court to exercise its function to grant consent - orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.16, 8.7, 8.15
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), s 90
Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021, cll 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.6, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11
Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 23, 38, 91
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Ch 2, 2.8
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.48, 2.119, 2.120, 2.122

Texts Cited: Bayside Council, Community Engagement and Communications Strategy 2022-2026
NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy & Flood Risk Management Manual
Bayside Development Control Plan 2022

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: AUDAA Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
M Hanna (Solicitor)(Applicant)
K Mortimer (Solicitor)(Respondent)
Solicitors:
Merc Law Group (Applicant)
Lindsay Tayolor Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/186007

Publication restriction: No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Development Application number DA-2024/249 seeking consent for the demolition of all existing dwellings, tree removal and construction of a two-storey place of public worship (POPW) and congregation hall, basement parking and associated landscape works (Proposed Development) at 57-61 President Avenue Kogarah legally described as Lots 1 – 3 in DP 29137 (the Site).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 2 and 23 September and 20 November 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. During the course of the proceedings, the Applicant provided the Respondent with amended plans that increase the basement footprint of the development to allow for 37 car parking spots, a reduction of the church hall floor space, and design changes to the proposed church and façade to address the contentions raised by the Respondent. The parties agree that the plans, as amended, are acceptable.

4. The Development Application was notified in accordance with the Bayside Council Community Engagement and Communications Strategy 2022-2026 (Engagement Strategy) as particularised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 25 June 2025 on two occasions, from 24 October 2024 to 21 November 2024 and a set of revised plans from 11 April 2025 to 16 May 2025 Over 200 submissions were received by the Respondent during thos notification periods. Following the first day of the conciliation conference, the agreed amended architectural plans and supporting documents were renotified from 27 October 2025 to 7 November 2025. 157 submissions were received during re-notification. The parties have considered the concerns raised in the submissions and provided in table format reproduced below a summary of the concerns raised in the submissions and how those issues have been addressed.

| Concerns Raised | Comment | | Overdevelopment / Contrary to or Incompatible with the Low Density Residential Zone 1. Precedent for overdevelopment 2. Unreasonable scale of use | Places of public worship are a nominate permitted use in Zone R2 Proposal complies with FSR standard for the site. | | Visual impact / neighbourhood character 1. The addition of the bridge adding to the scale of the development 2. Introduction of a large, high traffic facility disrupting the established character of the neighbourhood, defined by quiet streets and family homes 3. Undermine the sense of safety, privacy and cohesion that residents value | The Council’s external urban design expert is satisfied with the external appearance of the proposed development. Impacts to neighbourhood character by reason of noise and traffic are addressed below. | | Inadequate Documentation 1. Addressing changes to traffic light entry and exit at the corner of Moorefield Avenue affecting traffic from Marshall Street to Civil to President Avenue 2. Survey Plan being blurred and illegible 3. Inadequate impact assessments | The Council is satisfied with the documentation. | | Traffic safety, congestion and inadequate parking 1. Failing to meet section 2.119 of the TI SEPP 2. Increased activity associated with development being dangerous for pedestrians and motorists, causing congestion and hindering traffic flow 3. Insufficient parking for 138 parishioners, placing pressure on existing street parking and causing overflow 4. Conflicting traffic during proposed Mass which intersects with school drop off and workers commuting 5. Lack of public transport options 6. Peaceful, quiet, safe residential area impacted by additional traffic flow 7. Moorefield Avenue being a narrow street that cannot handle large volumes of traffic | This was a central contention in the proceedings. The Council’s external traffic expert is satisfied that traffic safety, congestion and parking is addressed. | | Drainage & Runoff Risks No hydrological study has been submitted to demonstrate how stormwater runoff and potential contaminants will be contained and treated, posing environmental and public health concerns | Addressed in the material from NY Civil Engineering, MUSIC Modelling and the ecological review by Environmental Services & Education Australia | | Overshadowing impacts, affecting neighbours sunlight Loss of privacy to neighbours | Amended architectural plans confirm that 1. Any overshadowing impacts are compliant with the relevant planning controls 2. There is no adverse visual privacy impact. The Council’s planning experts are satisfied that any overshadowing and privacy impacts of the proposed development are addressed and mitigated | | Acoustic disruption 1. Large gatherings, amplified sound and regular community events will generate substantial noise 2. Parking and vehicle movements increasing noise 3. Noise impacts affecting residents’ wellbeing, sleep and quality of life. Proposed operating hours raise noise concerns | The Council’s external acoustic expert is satisfied that the acoustic impacts of the proposed development are addressed and mitigated | | Operational Management Plan lacks clarity, measurable commitments and enforceable conditions | The Council is satisfied with the Operational Management Plan | | Impact to Property Values and amenity of the neighbourhood | Impacts to property values are not a matter for consideration pursuant to section 4.15 | | Cumulative Construction Impacts | Managed by conditions of consent – construction management plan and hours of construction | | Underestimated attendance and future intensification | The applicant is required to comply with the conditions of development consent, which include a patron limit of 138 people, including the installation and use of an automatic patronage counter. | | Weak oversight and enforcement mechanisms | The applicant is required to comply with the conditions of development consent, which include a patron limit of 138 people including the installation and use of an automatic patronage counter. |

5. The plan of management that was initially lodged with the Council and exhibited indicated that 1mass was proposed on a Sunday. That Sunday mass remains as part of the Proposed Development notwithstanding that due to a formatting error, the plan of management that was re-notified from 27 October to 7 November 2025 had deleted from Section 3.3 Typical Weekly Schedule the 1 mass proposed on a Sunday with a maximum capacity of 138 people.

6. The parties agree that all Contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on 25 June 2025 (SOFAC) have been resolved by the preparation of the amended plans and documents listed below at [48(1)] below and the agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision involves the Court:

7. Upholding the appeal;

8. exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application to grant development consent to the development application, as amended, subject to conditions and upholding a clause 4.6 variation request for height;

9. exercising the function under s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act to order the Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away.

10. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

11. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the Court’s functions can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings including the terms of cl 4.6 of the Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 (BLEP) to justify the contravention of a development standard. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed jurisdictional statement provided to the Court.

12. The parties consider that the approval of the Development Application does not result in any contravention of the EPA Act, any environmental planning instrument or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

13. The Applicant has obtained owner’s consent for the Development Application, as contained in Tab 1 of the Class 1 Application filed with the Court: s 23, EPA Regulation.

14. The Site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the BLEP where “places of public worship” are permitted with consent pursuant to the Land Use Table and are defined to mean:

a building or place used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.

12. The Site is not a Heritage Item nor located within a Heritage Conservation Area under the BLEP: cl 5.10.

13. Consent is sought for demolition pursuant to cl 2.7 of the BLEP and for earthworks pursuant to cl 6.2 of the BLEP.

Contravention of the maximum height of building (HOB) development standard

14. Whilst a majority of the church and congregational hall building are designed to comply with the maximum height of building (HOB) development standard of 8.5m pursuant to cl 4.3 of the BLEP, the bell tower and an architectural dome feature exceed that height. Both the bell tower and the dome contain a cross structure as a religious symbol, however, the cross is not included in the overall HOB having regard to the BLEP definition of building height. The bell tower extends to a height of 9.5m above ground level (existing), and the dome extends to a height of 11.01m above ground level (existing) representing a departure of 2.519m or a 30% variation to the HOB development standard.

15. The Applicant relies on a Clause 4.6 Variation Request (Written Request) prepared by Avenue Town Planning dated 15 September 2025 seeking to justify the contravention of the HOB development standard. The Written Request demonstrates that strict compliance with the HOB development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances where there are sufficient environmental planning grounds and the objectives of the height development standard have been achieved: cl 4.6(3), BLEP.

16. The objectives of cl 4.3 are as follows:

(a) to ensure that building height is consistent with the desired future character of an area,

(b) to minimise visual impact of new development, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

(c) to nominate heights that will provide an appropriate transition in built form and land use intensity.

17. The Written Request explains that the portions of the building that do not comply with the HOB development standard, are elements that respond to the opportunity for an improved urban outcome by providing pronounced architectural features that enhance the overall appearance and contribution of the building to the streetscape.

18. Clause 5.6 of the BLEP relates to architectural roof features, and requires development consent for an architectural roof feature that exceeds the HOB development standard set by cl 4.3 of the BLEP.

19. I accept that the non-compliant building elements are decorative architectural elements of the building that do not contain advertising, do not contribute to additional floor space and result in minimal overshadowing. To this end, the offending elements of the building can reasonably be described as “Architectural Roof Features” under the dispensary cl 5.6 of the BLEP and I am satisfied that these architectural roof features satisfy the terms of cl 5.6(3) of the BLEP.

20. As set out in the Written Request, there are sufficient environmental grounds that justify the contravening of the maximum height and I accept that these architectural roof features cannot be attributed to impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy, view loss, visual impacts or overshadowing. Put another way, “the non-compliance allows for an improved architectural expression at the site without giving rise to adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours.” (Written Request, p 8)

21. The Court is satisfied that the applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the HOB development standard in cl 4.3 of the BLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of BLEP.

22. The Proposed Development has a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.445:1 which complies with the maximum FSR development standard of 0.5:1 pursuant to cl 4.4 of the BLEP.

Flood planning

23. The Site is subject to flooding in a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) and Probably Maximum Flood (PMF) event. The Applicant relies upon Flooding Assessment Report dated 17 September 2025 and Flood Emergency Response Report dated 1 September 2025, both prepared by NY Civil, as required by Section 9.5.4 of the Bayside Development Control Plan 2022 (BDCP) and the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy & Flood Risk Management Manual to demonstrate no adverse flood impacts would result from the Proposal.

24. Clause 5.21(2) and (3) of the BLEP requires that:

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land the consent authority considers to be within the flood planning area unless the consent authority is satisfied the development—

(a) is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land, and

(b) will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood, and

(d) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood, and

(e) will not adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses.

(3) In deciding whether to grant development consent on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider the following matters—

(a) the impact of the development on projected changes to flood behaviour as a result of climate change,

(b) the intended design and scale of buildings resulting from the development,

(c) whether the development incorporates measures to minimise the risk to life and ensure the safe evacuation of people in the event of a flood,

(d) the potential to modify, relocate or remove buildings resulting from development if the surrounding area is impacted by flooding or coastal erosion.

25. There is an assessment of the matters in cl 5.21 reproduced above, in Table 1 and Table 2 on page 12 of the Flooding Assessment Report. This assessment demonstrates that all the applicable flood planning requirements for the Proposed Development and the Site are effectively addressed, and compliance with cl 5.21(2) and (3) of the BLEP is achieved. A flood planning level assessment was also undertaken to confirm all habitable areas and non habitable areas are sufficiently protected from floodwaters.

26. The Site is mapped as containing Class 2 and Class 5 acid sulfate soils (ASS) and pursuant to cl 6.1 of the BLEP, development consent is required because the Proposed Development involves works below natural ground level for the basement.

27. The Applicant relies on an Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment Report prepared by EI Australia dated on 18 July 2023 which includes an ASS assessment for the Site, undertaken in conjunction with the contamination and geotechnical assessments. The results of the laboratory analysis, in combination with the field observations, indicate that actual ASS are not present at the Site. The natural alluvial clayey sands identified indicators of potential ASS, with some unoxidised inorganic sulfides present. A generic management plan was provided within this document, which presents details for the management of ASS during development works. This plan takes into consideration potential impacts of lowering the groundwater table on surrounding properties, specific measures have been included in the management plan to control this. Accordingly, the Proposed Development is consistent with the objectives and satisfies the requirements of cl 6.1 of BLEP.

28. The Applicant relies upon Stormwater Plans prepared by NY Civil dated 30 September 2025 and the agreed conditions which impose conditions relating to the stormwater drainage system to satisfy the terms of cl 6.3 of the BLEP which relate to stormwater and water sensitive urban design.

29. The Court is satisfied that the stormwater management requirements of the BLEP are met and that the stormwater management minimises the adverse impacts of urban stormwater on the land on which development is to be carried out, adjoining properties, native bushland, waterways, receiving waters and groundwater systems: cl 6.3(2), BLEP.

30. The Site is located within an area defined in schedules of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 which limits the height of structures to 15.23 m above existing ground height (AEGH) without prior approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Clause 6.7 of the BLEP provides the relevant considerations for Airspace Operations. As the Proposed Development will be under the 15.23 metres height limit and below the maximum allowable Obstacle Limitation Surface level (OLS) of RL 51m AHD, it was not required to be referred to CASA and is satisfactory with respect to the objectives and requirements of cl 6.7 of the BLEP. Additionally, the Council referred the DA to Sydney Airports and their comments are included in the conditions of consent. The Site is not located in an ANEX contour of 20 or greater so the indoor design sound level requirements of cl 6.8 of the BLEP do not apply.

31. Essential services are available on Site to facilitate the Proposed Development in terms of water, electricity, vehicle access and sewerage disposal: cl 6.11, BLEP

32. The Site is mapped as ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ for the purposes of Chapter 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP). Section 2.8 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land identified as proximity area for coastal wetlands, unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on the matters identified at s 2.8(1)(a) and (b) which provide as follows:

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land identified as “proximity area for coastal wetlands” or “proximity area for littoral rainforest” on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on—

(a) the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or

(b) the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.

33. To satisfy these provisions the Applicant relies on the following:

34. Environmental Services & Education Australia (ESEA) has undertaken an ecological review of the stormwater management plans prepared by NY Civil Engineering. ESEA’s review specifically addressed the Council’s contention regarding potential impacts to coastal wetlands and local Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) populations.

35. NY Civil Engineering have prepared correspondence dated 30 September 2025 that water quality and peak flow will be improved in the post-development scenario, as confirmed by MUSIC water quality modelling, and DRAINS hydraulic modelling.

36. MUSIC modelling has been provided that demonstrates that the stormwater treatment system will have a neutral or beneficial environmental (NorBE) impact on the adjacent Coastal Wetlands. ESEA supports that the proposed development achieves a NorBE outcome, based on these results.

37. Further to this, the updated design incorporates a notation outlining the exclusive use of rainwater tank re-use facilities on the Site for landscaped irrigation, with particular emphasis on continual irrigation to be provided throughout drought periods, with mains top-up to the rainwater holding tank also incorporated into the design. This ensures continual operation of the irrigation system during extended dry-weather periods.

38. ESEA considers that water quality and quantity measures have been appropriately designed to ensure that runoff from the proposed development site is of better quality and reduced peak from that of the existing Site. ESEA supports that the Proposed Development likely provides an improved environment for the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

39. The Respondent advises that their ecologist, Dr McLean, has reviewed the material from NY Civil Engineering and ESEA and he is satisfied that s 2.8 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP has been addressed.

40. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the Proposed Development will not significantly impact on:

41. the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or

42. the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.

43. The Site is currently occupied by existing dwelling houses. The Site’s application history and historic aerial imagery lead to the conclusion that it is unlikely that the Site has previously been used for contaminating land uses. In any event, and for the purpose of s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, the Applicant relies on a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) prepared by EI Australia dated 19 July 2023 which notes that from 1961 onwards the land was continuously used for low density, residential purposes and that the soil and groundwater sampling and analysis of 8 x boreholes and laboratory testing confirms that the site is not contaminated. Accordingly, the DSI concludes that the Site is suitable for the Proposed Development.

44. The development application was referred to Ausgrid for comments because the proposed works are within the vicinity of electricity infrastructure: s 2.48, State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP). Ausgrid confirmed that it had no objections to the Proposed Development subject to the imposition of conditions of consent which have been incorporated within the agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A.

Part 2.3, Division 17 – Roads and Road Infrastructure Facilities

40. The Site has frontage to President Avenue which is a classified road. Accordingly, the Proposed Development is required to satisfy the terms of ss 2.119 and 2.122 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP. In respect of s 2.119(2), access is being provided from Moorefield Avenue.

41. In satisfaction of s 2.122(4), the Respondent referred the Development Application to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for comments. The letter from TfNSW dated 7 November 2024 confirmed that as part of the M6 Motorway upgrades, current planning is for:

42. Moorefield Avenue to be signalised and integrated into the existing signalised intersection of President Avenue/West Botany Street; and

43. Moorefield Avenue will also be restricted to one-way northbound between Warren Avenue and President Avenue.

44. The Respondent advises that on 4 November 2025 TfNSW provided a further letter in response to the amended DA, reiterating the suggested conditions and advisory comments in the TfNSW submission dated 7 November 2024.

45. The Proposed Development is for construction of a place of public worship that is on land in or adjacent to the road corridor for a freeway, a tollway or a transitway or any other road with an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 20,000 vehicles and that the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by road noise or vibration. Section 2.120 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP relates to the impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development.

46. The acoustic report prepared by Acouras dated 26 November 2025 considered the potential impact of road noise on the Proposed Development and identifies and addresses the relevant guidelines to determine the appropriate internal noise levels and the appropriate measures that will be taken to ensure that the LAeq levels are not exceeded: s 2.120(3), Transport and Infrastructure SEPP. The acoustic report concludes that the development will satisfy the noise level requirements as outlined in the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, should the recommendations in the report be adopted. I note that the acoustic report is included in Condition 1 of the agreed conditions at Annexure A

47. An approval under s 90 of the Water Management Act 2000 is required, because the Proposed Development involves a temporary construction dewatering activity and therefore a Water Supply Work approval. The development application is therefore classified as integrated development as it requires a controlled activity approval, pursuant to s 91 of the EPA Regulation. The Proposed Development involves excavation of basement car parking levels. Testing on site has been undertaken and the geotechnical report prepared by Ei Australia dated 21 April 2024 demonstrates that groundwater was encountered at RL 1.9m AHD. The application was referred to Water NSW for concurrence. In a letter dated 4 December 2024 Water NSW provided their General Terms of Approval (GTA) for the proposal for fully tanking the basement.

48. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I adopt the reasons given by the parties as set out in this judgment.

49. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Notations:

48. The Court notes that:

49. The Respondent, Bayside Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending Development Application DA-2024/249 in accordance with the following amended plans and reports:

Architectural Plans

| Plan No./Revision | Plan Name | Date | Prepared by | | DA-000, Rev B | Cover Sheet | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-01, Rev B | Site Analysis | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-02, Rev B | Street Views | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-03, Rev B | FSR & Landscape Calculations | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-04, Rev B | Area Calculations | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-05, Rev B | Demolition Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-06, Rev B | Site Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-07, Rev B | Basement Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-08, Rev B | Ground Floor Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-09, Rev B | First Floor Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-10, Rev B | Roof Plan | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-11, Rev B | President Avenue Elevation | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-12, Rev B | Moorefields Ave Elevation | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-13, Rev B | Elevations 1 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-14, Rev B | Elevations 2 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-15, Rev B | Sections 1 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-16, Rev B | Sections 2 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-17, Rev B | Sections 3 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-18, Rev B | Sections 4 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-19, Rev B | Sections 5 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-20, Rev B | Sections 6 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-21, Rev B | Shadow Analysis – Winter | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-22, Rev B | Shadow Analysis – Summer | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-23, Rev B | CGI – 1 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-24, Rev B | CGI – 2 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-25, Rev B | CGI – 3 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-26, Rev B | CGI – 4 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-27, Rev B | CG1 – 5 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-28, Rev B | CG1 – 6 | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-29, Rev B | 3D Building Envelope | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-30, Rev B | Shadow Analysis – Winter Hourly | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-31, Rev B | Fence Detail and CGI | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-32, Rev B | Curved Building Element Detail and CGI | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-33, Rev B | Acoustic Barrier Detail and CGI | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd | | DA-34, Rev B | Materials | 23.09.2025 | AUDAA Pty Ltd |

Landscape Plans

| Plan No. | Plan Name | Date | Prepared by | | DA-L101, Revision E | Ground Floor | 16 October 2025 | Canvas Landscape Architects | | DA-L102, Revision D | Landscape typical details & Maintenance schedule | 1 October 2025 | Canvas Landscape Architects |

Stormwater Plans

| Plan No. | Plan Name | Date | Prepared by | | D1, Revision H | Details, Notes & Legend | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D2, Revision H | Stormwater Management Plan Basement | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D3, Revision H | Stormwater Management Plan | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D4, Revision H | WSUD Catchment Plan | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D5, Revision H | Driveway Long Section | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D6, Revision H | Stormwater and Sediment Control Details | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | D7, Revision H | Sediment Control Plan | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering |

Supporting Documents

| Document Title | Date | Prepared by | | Letter from Varga Traffic Planning | 16 October 2025 | Varga Traffic Planning | | Operational Plan of Management, Revision I | 26 November 2025 | Avenue Town Planning | | Flood Report, Revision C | 17 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | Flood Emergency Respondent Plan, Issue A | 1 September 2025 | NY Civil Engineering | | Acoustic Report | 26 November 2025 | Acouras Consultancy | | Ecological Considerations – Stormwater Design and Coastal Wetlands | 1 October 2025 | ESEA Ecology | | Clause 4.6 Variation Request in relation to Height | 15 September 2025 | Avenue Town Planning | | Waste Management Plan Revision D | 21 August 2025 | Elephants Foot Consulting | | Letter from NY Civil regarding Stormwater Design and Coastal Wetland | 30 September 2025 | NY Civil |

2. The Applicant has filed the documents listed above with the Court on 27 November 2025.

Orders:

49. The Court orders:

50. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of Development Application DA-2024/249 pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), in the agreed sum of $17,500.00 within 28 days of these orders being made.

51. The Applicant's written request under cl 4.6 of the Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 (LEP), prepared by Avenue Town Planning dated 15 September 2025, to vary the development standard for height set out in cl 4.3 of the LEP, is upheld.

52. The appeal is upheld.

53. Development Consent is granted to Development Application DA-2024/249, for the demolition of all existing dwellings, tree removal and construction of a two-storey place of public worship, congregation hall, basement parking and associated landscape works on the land known as 57 – 61 President Avenue, Kogarah NSW 2217, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this Agreement.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Annexure A (1.38 MB, pdf)

Operational Plan of Management (349 KB, pdf)

Architectural Plans (19.3 MB, pdf)