These proceedings are an appeal made pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by Coffs Harbour City Council of Development Application No. 0160/19DA (DA) for a change of use to include increased capacity at a restaurant and the use of outdoor areas for dining (including car parking and other development related to the use) (proposed development) at 963 Orana Way, Nara Glen (site).
At the outset of the part-heard hearing on 22 December 2021, the parties advised the Court that the applicant had prepared amended plans and documents, and on that basis the parties had reached an in-principle agreement as to the terms of an agreement that would be acceptable to the parties.
Accordingly, the matter was reallocated to me under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), and the conciliation conference was held on 22 December 2021, at which I presided.
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the final terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to them. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application, as amended, subject to conditions. A signed s34 agreement was ultimately filed with the Court on 10 February 2022.
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. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application, as amended.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised: HP Subsidiary Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 135. The parties have identified and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings have been satisfied in their jurisdictional submission which accompanied their agreement.
The joint submission identifies that the site is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under the provisions of the Coffs Harbour Local Environmental Plan 2013 (CHLEP). The proposed development is defined as "restaurant" and is permissible with development consent within the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. Indeed, the restaurant use is already operating pursuant to an earlier development consent, being Consent No. 0444/17 granted in February 2017, as detailed at some length in the Council's Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (ASOFC) filed on 1 October 2021. In any case, there is no issue that the development is a permissible form of development in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone.
The objectives of that zone are as follows:
• To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.
• To maintain the rural landscape character of the land.
• To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture.
• To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.
These objectives are not pre-conditions to the grant of consent, but cl 2.3(2) requires consideration of them. The experts have considered these objectives in the joint reports and have concluded that the objectives are met. I have also considered these objectives as required.
Clause 7.11 of CHLEP requires the consent authority to be satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required -
(a) the supply of water,
(b) the supply of electricity,
(c) the disposal and management of sewage,
(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservations,
(e) suitable vehicular access.
Dealing firstly with the stormwater drainage or on-site conservation in relation to the proposed development, this has been adequately addressed by way of various conditions of consent. In the set of conditions agreed between the parties dated 10 February 2022, the following conditions have been included to satisfy cl 7.11(d) of the CHELP:
Condition 10 - Requirement for a Stormwater Management Plan prepared in accordance with the Council's Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy being submitted to and approved by the Council prior to issue of the Construction Certificate;
Condition 36 - Requirement that Stormwater Drainage be managed via a legal point of discharged by means of an approved drainage system prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. A certified plumber is required to issue a certificate to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and the Council verifying the system has been installed and is in compliance with the approved design.
With regards to cl 7.11(e) concerning suitable vehicular access, this has been comprehensively addressed through consideration of this issue in the Traffic Impact Assessment (Ver. 6), prepared by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd dated 3 December 2021 (TIA), and also by way of various conditions contained in the agreed conditions of consent dated 10 February 2022. This includes a number of conditions, several of which are based on the analysis and recommendations contained within the TIA. These conditions are identified below.
Condition 11 - Intersection upgrade for access to the site
Conditions 12 and 13 - Equitable access and facilities
Condition 32 - Intersection upgrade
Condition 35 - Internal driveway and car parking areas
Condition 47 - Vehicle and pedestrian access - adjoining Council controlled road reserve
Condition 48 - Car parking - adjoining Council controlled road reserve
Condition 50 - Unobstructed driveways and parking areas
Condition 51 - Car parking areas
Additionally, the TIA and the conditions also address the requirements of cl 101 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) in relation to the proposed development. The subject site has a frontage to Orara Way, which is a Classified (Regional) Road (MR151). The Council is the roads authority for all public roads (other than freeways or Crown roads for which it has not been granted control over) in the local government area, pursuant to s 7 of the Roads Act 1993.
Briefly, in respect of the Council-controlled Crown road reserve located adjacent to the site, the applicant is prohibited from using this area for vehicular access, pursuant to condition 47 of the agreed conditions. Further to this, condition 9 of the agreed conditions also requires a permanent fence to be erected on the southern boundary of the site, adjoining this road reserve for the purposes of restricting vehicular access between it and the subject site.
Concurrence from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is required prior to Council's approval of works on classified (regional) roads under s 138 of the Roads Act. Section 138(1) provides, that:
A person must not -
(a) erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public road, or
(b) dig up or disturb the surface of a public road, or
(c) remove or interfere with a structure, work or tree on a public road, or
(d) pump water into a public road from any land adjoining the road, or
(e) connect a road (whether public or private) to a classified road,
otherwise than with the consent of the appropriate roads authority.
Importantly, subs (2) goes on to state:
A consent may not be given with respect to a classified road except with the concurrence of TfNSW.
Considering this in respect of the proposed development, arrangements to ensure adequate suitable vehicular access can be provided for on-site have been considered and recommendations addressing this have also been made in the TIA and which are once again included as conditions of consent. Specifically, this includes the construction of an Austroads Type Basic Axillary Right and Left (BAR/BAL) intersection treatment on Orara Way. This is reflected by condition 11 of the consent, whereby plans and specifications of the works are to be submitted to and approved by Council and TfNSW prior to the issue of a Civil Works Certificate; condition 21 requiring a Civil Works Certificate to be obtained from Council, in accordance with s 138 of the Roads Act prior to the commencement of works within the road reserve; and condition 32 requiring a letter of Satisfactory Completion for these Civil Works to be obtained from Council prior to the issue of the first Occupation Certificate or Commencement of Use.
Additionally, cl 101(2) of the Infrastructure SEPP provides, that:
The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that -
(a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than a classified road, and
(b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of -
(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or
(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or
(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and
(c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.
This clause does not require concurrence from TfNSW, however, it does require the consent authority to consider the above matters. Having considered the matters raised at subcll (a) to (c), I am satisfied that they have been adequately addressed in the TIA, once again in conjunction in the agreed conditions of consent identified previously.
In respect of cl 7.11(b) of the CHLEP regarding the supply of electricity for the proposed development, the parties agree this issue is adequately addressed through the current system servicing the existing development. While there will be additional capacity required as a result of the proposed development it is accepted by the parties this will not require any upgrades to the existing system.
As a result of the amendments made to the application on 15 December 2021, for which leave was granted by the Registrar of the Court on that date, the parties are now both satisfied that sufficient details have been provided to ensure capacity for the disposal and management of sewage and the supply of water on the site as required prior to the issuing of development consent by cl 7.11 of the CHLEP are contained as part of the proposed development.
In terms of the requirements of the proposed development for the disposal and management of sewage, this is set out in detail in the Earth Water Consulting Report dated 10 December 2021. This document is referred to at Condition 6 of Annexure A of the s 34 Agreement executed by the parties and was also a document for, which the Court granted the applicant leave to rely on as part of its amended proposal on 15 December 2021. The report, which was prepared by an appropriately qualified expert in this field was completed following close consultation with his counterpart acting on behalf of the Council in this matter. In this regard, the report addressed concerns raised by the Council, including in its further ASOFC filed with the Court on 1 October 2021. The report sets out in detail the existing capacity of the wastewater management system on-site and the upgrade required in order to meet the additional demand that would result from the proposed development. The proposed upgrade of the relevant system has also been considered with regard to any environmental impacts it would potentially have on the site and any surrounding public or private areas. Prior to seeking leave to rely on this report at the return of the notice of motion on 15 December 2021, the parties' respective experts both agreed this adequately addressed the requirements of cl 7.11 of the CHLEP in relation to wastewater and did so in a way, that would have an acceptable environmental impact.
Additionally, the findings of this report are reflected in a number of the agreed conditions of consent. This includes:
Condition 14 - On-site Sewage Management;
Condition 37 - On-site Sewage Management System.
With regards to the requirements of cl 7.11 of the CHLEP insofar as they relate to the supply of drinking water, this has also been considered in detail in a water supply assessment, prepared by de Groot & Benson Pty Ltd dated 7 December 2021. This report is also referred to in Condition 6 of the agreed conditions included at Annexure A of the s 34 Agreement entered into by the parties. The applicant was also granted leave by the Court to rely on this document as part of its amended proposal, as per the orders made on 15 December 2021.
Similar to that for wastewater disposal and sewage management, the water supply assessment considers the existing capacity on-site in respect of potable water and the additional demands that would reasonably be required from the proposed development. Taking this into account the assessment sets out in detail the necessary upgrades required of this system in order to meet the additional demands on capacity. In doing so it has considered the various mechanisms used to supply and distribute fresh water, like whether it would be appropriate to source it from a ground bore source, or using a rainwater tank, for example for the proposed development. Working in close consultation once again with his counterpart acting on behalf of the Council, the report then makes a clear recommendation as to what is required in order to meet the reasonable capacity requirements of the proposed development. In the report's conclusion and discussion section the responsible expert has had consideration of cl 7.11 of the CHLEP in respect of water supply and states explicitly, that the report and its recommendation satisfy its requirements.
As with the other services identified as part of cl 7.11, the supply of drinking water is also dealt with by way of the agreed conditions of consent, specifically condition 67 - Private supply of drinking water.
The parties agree there is no history of contamination on the site and the proposed continuation of an existing restaurant use of it is, therefore, satisfactory, pursuant to cl 7 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55).
The site has previously been approved for mixed use development and has been constructed in accordance with a consent granted by the Court, pursuant to DA 0808/16DA. This development application, in addition to subsequent applications, including 0444/17DA required a consideration of cl 7 of SEPP 55. The site is not located on the Coffs Harbour Acid Sulphate Soils Map, and the parties agree there is no contamination of the site, given there is no history of this.
Condition 4 of the agreed conditions of consent sent to the Court by way of email at 11:21am on 22 December 2021 requires the applicant to seek a modification of existing development consents, pursuant to the mechanism provided for under cl 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation).
Specifically, the applicant is required to submit a notice of modification in respect of condition 30 of 0808/16DA, in addition to condition 18 of development consent 0444/17DA. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that there is one consolidated development consent which applies to the whole of the site and which does not leave room for any inconsistency with any earlier development consent(s) applying to the site.
The power to impose such a condition is found in s 4.17(1)(b) of the EPA Act, which enables a condition of development consent to be imposed if "it requires the modification or surrender of a consent granted under this Act or a right conferred by Division 4.11 in relation to the land to which the development application relates". Section 4.17(5) then says:
If a consent authority imposes (as referred to in subsection (1)(b)) a condition requiring the modification or surrender of a consent granted under this Act or a right conferred by Division 4.11, the consent or right may be modified or surrendered subject to and in accordance with the regulations.
The relevant Regulation which in turn applies pursuant to s 4.17(5) is cl 97 of the EPA Regulation. That Regulation, which simply requires a 'notice of modification' to be provided to the Council (the Regulation specifies what must be included in the notice, but it is simple). Importantly, cl 97(2) provides as follows:
(2) A duly signed and delivered notice of modification or surrender of a development consent or existing use right referred to in subclause (1) -
(a) takes effect when it is received by the consent authority, and
(b) operates, according to its terms, to modify or surrender the development consent or existing use right to which it relates.
As such, the proposed condition 4 will facilitate and require the modification of the earlier development consents applicable to the site, to ensure that they are made entirely consistent with the subject development consent, which is essentially a consolidation. This process is expressly empowered by s 4.17(1)(b) of the EPA Act and with cl 97 of the EPA Regulation, as detailed above.
[2]
Conclusion
There is no other jurisdictional requirement to the grant of consent of which the parties are aware. 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. Accordingly, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.
The Court notes:
1. That Coffs Harbour City Council, as the relevant consent authority, has pursuant to cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 consented to the applicant amending the development application (0160/19DA).
2. The amended plans and documentation referred to in condition 6 of Annexure A, including the Plan of Management (Ver. 6) dated 7 February 2022 and the SEE dated February 2022, has been lodged on the NSW planning portal on 10 February 2022.
3. The amended plans and documentation referred to in condition 6 of Annexure A, including the Plan of Management (Ver. 6) dated 7 February 2022 and the SEE dated February 2022, has also been filed with the Court on 8 February 2022.
The Court orders that:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development Application No. 0160/19DA lodged on 29 August 2018, as amended 30 October 2019, 16 March 2021, 5 August 2021, 15 and 22 December 2021, and 7 February 2022, for a change of use to include increased capacity at a restaurant and the use of outdoor areas for dining (including car parking and other development related to the use) at 963 Orana Way, Nara Glen is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
……………………….
S Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (269223, pdf)
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 18 February 2022