//
[2026] NSWLEC 1062
General information, not legal advice.
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2026-02-13
Espinosa C
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Buildstrong NSW Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1062
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference held on 6 February 2026
Date of orders: 13 February 2026
Decision date: 13 February 2026
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent consent authority that are thrown away as a result of amending the Development Application in the agreed amount of $20,000.00 within 28 days of these orders being made.
(3) Development Application DA24/1023 for the demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 6-storey co-living housing development comprising 114 private rooms, six indoor communal rooms, two levels of basement and ancillary landscaping and stormwater works on Lot C in DP394963, Lot 10 in DP631487 and Lot 1 in DP655353, being 79 Parker Street and 120-122 High Street, Penrith is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – co-living housing – contravention of height of building development standard – contravention of building setbacks and separation development standard - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 1.3, 4.16, 8.7, 8.15
Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 23, 37
Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010, cll 2.7, 4.3, 4.6, 7.2, 7.30
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6, ss 6.1, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 67, 68, 69
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.100, 2.119, 2.120
Texts Cited: Penrith Development Control Plan 2014
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Buildstrong NSW Pty Ltd ACN 607 205 541 (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
G Visentin (Solicitor)(Applicant)
A Halls (Solicitor)(Respondent)
Solicitors:
McKee Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/75011
Publication restriction: No
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 DA24/1023 made on 14 January 2025 seeking consent for development described on the DA Form as ‘Demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 6-storey co-living housing development comprising 123 private rooms, 6 communal rooms, two levels of basement and related landscaping’ (Proposed Development) at 79 Parker Street and 120 and 122 High Street, Penrith legally described as Lot 1 DP 655353, Lot 10 DP 631487 and Lot C DP 394963 (the Site).
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 6 February 2026. I presided over the conciliation conference.
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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.
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.
The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of cl 4.6 of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (PLEP) 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.
The owner of the Site is Buildstrong NSW Pty Ltd and is the Applicant on the appeal: s 23(1)(a), Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Reg).
The Development Application was notified from 3 February 2025 to 16 February 2025. No submissions were received during the notification period. A submission was received on 23 July 2025 from the owner of 124 High Street, Penrith, raising concerns about the impacts of the development on that property in terms of visual, acoustic and overshadowing impacts. The parties agree that the impact on this property has been reduced by the amended plans. A copy of the amended plans has been provided to the objector for comment and the Respondent advised the Court that the objector did not seek to make any further submissions.
The Site is situated in an R4 High Density Residential zone under the PLEP where co-living housing is prohibited whereas residential flat buildings are permitted with consent. The Applicant relies on s 67 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) which provides that co-living housing is permitted where residential flat buildings are permitted. Accordingly, the Proposed Development is permitted on the Site with consent.
Clause 2.7 Demolition – Demolition requires development consent – the application seeks consent for demolition.
Earthworks are proposed as part of the development and include the construction of a basement which is permitted with consent pursuant to cl 7.1 of the PLEP. The parties are satisfied that:
The proposal will not result in any significant or adverse impact to the drainage of the locality. A Stormwater Plan is submitted with this application.
The proposal is designed to reflect the topography of the site and responds to the constraints and opportunities of the site.
The site has previously been disturbed and it is unlikely that works will impact on any archaeological or aboriginal significance.
The site is not within proximity to any waterway or environmentally sensitive area.
The proposed development results in minor earthworks, other than for the basement excavation. Any cut and fill will be appropriately contained by retaining walls which will be wholly contained within the subject property.
There will be no significant impact on the amenity of the area or adjoining properties as a result of proposed earthworks.
The Proposed Development includes a range of sustainable practices to satisfy the terms of cl 7.30 of the PLEP relating to urban heat. The landscaped areas at ground floor are permeable, particularly deep soil areas which will allow the site to naturally retain water. Light materials have been prioritised. The building has been designed to be well insulated and ventilated.
Section 68 of the Housing SEPP contains non-discretionary development standards for co-living housing developments, and the Proposed Development complies with these.
The Proposed Development contravenes the height of building (HOB) development standard of 18 m (cl 4.3, PLEP) with a proposed HOB of 21.05m. The HOB contravention relates to the lift overrun and roof line. Development consent may, subject to cl 4.6 of the PLEP, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by the PLEP.
The Applicant relies on a clause 4.6 written request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 3 December 2025 (HOB written request) to justify the contravention of the HOB development standard. The HOB written request provides a detailed assessment of cl 4.6 and its objectives, whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and whether there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.
The Court can be satisfied that the HOB written request adequately addresses the following matters that are required to be demonstrated under cl 4.6 of PLEP:
that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case, and
that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
The HOB written request concludes at p 13 that:
“Having regard to all of the above, it is our opinion that compliance with the maximum height development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the development meets the objectives of that standard and the zone objectives. The proposal has also demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the breach.
Therefore, insistence upon strict compliance with that standard would be unreasonable. On this basis, the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) are satisfied and the variation supported.”
The Court is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the PLEP seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard for HOB set out in cl 4.3 of the PLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of the PLEP.
The Proposed Development contravenes the Building Setbacks and Separation development standard pursuant to ss 69(2)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Housing SEPP. Development consent may, subject to cl 4.6 of the PLEP, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by any other environmental planning instrument.
The Applicant relies on a cl 4.6 written request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 3 December 2025 to justify the contravention of the Building Setbacks and Separation development standards set out in ss 69(2)(a)(ii) & (b) to the Housing SEPP.
Section 69(2)(a) of the Housing SEPP states:
(2) Development consent must not be granted for the purposes of co-living housing unless the consent authority considers whether –
(a) the front, side and rear setbacks for the co-living housing are not less than— …
(ii) for development on land in Zone R4 High Density Residential—the minimum setback requirements for residential flat buildings under a relevant planning instrument.
(b) if the co-living housing has at least 3 storeys—the building will comply with the minimum building separation distances specified in the Apartment Design Guide
The parties explain that the Penrith Development Control Plan 2014 (PDCP) provides a number of setback controls. In relation to the front setback, the PDCP control is for either the average of the setbacks of the immediate neighbour, or 5.5m minimum, whichever is the greater dimension. The Proposed Development provides a varying front setback to Hight Street of 3.5m to 6m.
In relation to secondary setback on corner lots, the PDCP control is for 5.5m to building and 3m to verandahs. The Proposed Development provides a varying secondary setback from Parker Street of 3.5m to 5.5m.
In relation side setbacks, the PDCP provides that a nil setback is unacceptable whereas the Proposed Development provides a 4.5m side setback.
In relation to the rear setback, the PDCP control is for 4m at ground level and 6m for upper levels. The Proposed Development provides a varying rear setback of 3-18m.
The Building Setbacks and Separation clause 4.6 written request argues that compliance is not reasonable or necessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved. At pp 8 to 10 of the cl 4.6 written request demonstrates how the Proposed Development achieves the following assumed objectives:
Setbacks are to reflect the character of an established garden suburb, and provide for development of flora and fauna corridors: Part 2.5.6, PDCP.
For allotments facing two streets or adjoining a public park, apply traditional principles of orientation and articulation to both of the public frontages.
Housing SEPP Principles ss 3(a) through to (h).
The Building Setbacks and Separation clause 4.6 written request goes on to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard at pp 10 to 14. Apart from achieving the objects in ss 1.3(a)-(c) of the EPA Act, the written request provides at p 11 that:
“The setback requirements of the PDCP 2014 are for residential flat buildings which envisages a large-scale buildings to achieve a high standard of amenity, beyond what is required for co-living. The site is located on a strategic corner lot, an idyllic location for development due to the multiple frontages. The DCP controls do not take into consideration the irregular shape of the lot on the corner and is a site specific variation that will not result in any precedence in support of the variation. Furthermore, adherence to the setback controls of PDCP 2014 would likely result in the redistribution of available GFA into areas of the building that will create greater impacts on solar access and amenity of adjoining properties which would be a sub-optimal outcome. The avoidance of a sub-optimal outcome is a sufficient environmental planning ground in itself”
“Having regard to all of the above, it is our opinion that numeric compliance with the setback development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the development meets the assume objectives of that standard and the interest of the setback controls of the PDCP. The proposal has also demonstrated sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the breach.
Therefore, insistence upon strict compliance with that standard would be unreasonable. On this basis, the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) are satisfied and the variation supported.”
The Court is satisfied that the Applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard for Building Setbacks and Separation set out in ss 69(2)(a)(ii) & (b) to the Housing SEPP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of PLEP.
While a BASIX Certificate is generally required for residential development, the EPA Reg at Sch 7, defines a “BASIX building” as:
" a building that contains at least 1 dwelling but does not include the following— (a) hotel or motel accommodation, (b) a boarding house, hostel or co-living housing that—(i) accommodates more than 12 residents, or (ii) has a gross floor area exceeding 300 square metres".
As the proposal is for a co-living housing development that comprises more than 12 rooms, or exceeds 300 sqm, the proposal is not required to address BASIX requirements under Ch 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2021.
There are a number of provisions in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP) which are relevant to the Proposed Development because, as summarised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 16 April 2025:
“The Site is located on a major signalled intersection, with seven lanes with median strips and parking restrictions for the frontage of the Site along both High Street and Parker Street. High Street provides access into the Penrith CBD to the west and to the east the road is known as The Great Western Highway. Parker Street provides access to the M4 Motorway to the south.”
As the Site is approximately 55m from a railway corridor and has frontages onto classified roads, the Applicant relies on DA Acoustic Report by PKA Acoustic Consulting, dated 9 September 2025. The recommendations in the DA Acoustic Report satisfy the terms of ss 2.100 and 2.120 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, which deal with the impact of rail noise or vibration on non-rail development and the impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development.
In relation to the location of the Site fronting a classified road, s 2.119 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, the parties explain as follows:
“In response to s2.119(2)(a), there is no available access from a road other than a classified road. There is therefore no practicable access from a road other than a classified road.
Clause 5.2 of the traffic report prepared by Genisis Traffic confirms that the access to the site from Parker Street meets the requirements of AS2890.
Clause 6.4 of the report confirms that traffic generated from the proposed development of approximately 13 vehicle movement per hour during traffic peaks is considered minor in the context of the existing traffic conditions.
The report confirms at clause 7 that the traffic generation of the proposed development will not present any adverse traffic implications
The co-living development is not of a type which would contribute smoke or dust.
The Court would be satisfied that the access to the site from Parker Street is considered safe.
The proposed development satisfies the requirements of s2.119(b).
Traffic noise has been considered in the acoustic report prepared by PKA Acoustic Consulting which supports the application. Recommendations are made to confirm that the development.
Balconies facing the classified roads have been excluded up to level 3. Communal open space areas are centrally located within the site and screened from the classified roads. The development provides a substantial setback of approximately varying from 5.5m ~ 7.9 metres from the classified roads. This setback is reinforced by landscaped areas. The development has been designed to minimise the acoustic and emission impacts from traffic.
The proposed development is consistent with s2.119(c) and the Court would therefore be satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements of s2.119.”
The Site has a history of residential use and there is no reason to suspect that the Site is subject to any contamination. Historical aerial imagery from 1943 confirms the Site was formerly used for agriculture in the mid-1900s and transitioned to a more urban residential use by the mid-1980s. It can therefore be concluded that the Site has been used for residential purposes for at minimum 45 years. A search by the parties of the NSW EPA contaminated land register has confirmed the site is not known to be contaminated. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the requirements of s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) have been appropriately considered.
The Site is within the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment (s 6.1, State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP)) but is not mapped by council as being flood liable land (s 6.5, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP).
The Applicant provided a Statement Confirming Satisfaction of Ch 6 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP, dated 23 January 2026, prepared by Deboke Engineering Consultants*.*
In relation to the listed considerations at s 6.6(1) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP regarding Water quality & quantity, the parties agree that:
Subject to the installation and maintenance of sediment controls during building works in accordance with the Stormwater Drainage Plans prepared by Deboke Consultants, dated 9 September 2025, revision 4, Stormwater Treatment Operation and Maintenance Manuel prepared by Deboke dated 13 August 2025, Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Elite Geosciences dated 9 October 2024 and conditions of consent, the development will have a neutral effect on the quality of water entering a waterway.
The development will not have an adverse impact on water flow in a natural waterbody.
The development is unlikely to increase stormwater runoff from the site in any significant or unacceptable manner.
The development does incorporate on-site stormwater retention, infiltration or reuse.
The development will have no impact on the level and quality of the water table.
Cumulative environmental impacts from the development on the regulated catchment are negligible.
Having regard to the extent of excavation proposed, no specific measures are required protect the quality and quantity of groundwater.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied, as required by s 6.6(2) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP that:
The effect on the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral.
The development has negligible and satisfactory water flow impacts for a natural waterbody.
In relation to the listed considerations in s 6.7(1) regarding Aquatic ecology, the parties confirm that:
To the extent of any direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation, the impact is minor and not determinative of the application.
The development does not involve the clearing of riparian vegetation.
The development will not involve sedimentation of a natural waterbody or erosion of land abutting a natural waterway.
The development will not have an adverse impact on wetlands.
The development will not impact aquatic ecology and therefore does not require safeguards and rehabilitation measures.
The development does not adjoin a natural waterbody.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.7(2) criteria, the Court is satisfied that:
any direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation will be kept to the minimum necessary for the carrying out of the development,
the development will not have a direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on aquatic reserves,
no approval or permit is required under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) or the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW),
the land does not abut a natural waterbody,
there will be no adverse impact on wetlands.
In relation to Flooding at s 6.8(1) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP, the parties confirm that the Proposed Development will have no impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems and in relation to s 6.8(2), the parties confirm that the development:
will not result in a release of pollutants in the event of a flood.
will not have an adverse impact on the natural recession of floodwaters into wetlands and other riverine ecosystems.
The parties confirm that the Proposed Development will have no impact on recreational land uses in the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment and no impact on public access to and around foreshores: s 6.9(1), Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that:
the development has no impact on public access to and from natural waterbodies for recreational purposes.
the development does not involve new or existing points of public access to natural waterbodies.
the land does not form part of a foreshore of a natural waterbody.
The parties agree that the Proposed Development will not have an adverse environmental impact for adjacent and downstream local government areas; s 6.10(1), Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.
The land use proposed does not abut the natural waterbody: s 6.11, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.
The parties confirm the site is within a riverine scenic area. The Court is satisfied that the impact of the Proposed Development on the scenic quality of the Riverine Scenic Area will be minimised pursuant to s 6.12 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP because the parties are satisfied that:
the development is unlikely to damage riverbanks,
the development will be adequately set back from natural waterbodies in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment,
the visibility of the development from the surrounding natural waterbodies and visual catchment is appropriate,
the development is consistent with the scenic character of the Riverine Scenic Area, as described in the document entitled Hawkesbury-Nepean River Scenic Quality Study, published by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in 1996,
the development will not impact on public recreational and visual access to natural waterbodies,
landscaping, will not be impacted including—
(a) the form and siting of buildings, (b) the colours and materials proposed to be used in the buildings, (c) whether the development includes or retains native vegetation
the appropriateness of imposing a condition requiring the protection of the scenic character of the Riverine Scenic Area.
Finally, s 6.13 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP relate to Hawkesbury-Nepean conservation area sub-catchments and the parties confirm the Site is within this sub-catchment and development consent has been sought. In relation to the s 6.13(2) considerations, the parties agree that:
the development will minimise human interference with the condition of the sub-catchment,
the development will maintain and enhance the structure and floristics of native vegetation in the sub-catchment,
the development will maintain or enhance the scenic quality of the locality,
development has previously been carried out on the development site.
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.
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.
The Court notes:
The Penrith City Council as the relevant consent authority has agreed, under section 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to the applicant amending the Development Application number DA24/1023 in accordance with the plans and documents listed below:
| Plan No. | Description | Prepared by | Revision | Date | | Architectural Plans | | A101 | Basement 2 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A102 | Basement 1 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A103 | Ground Floor Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A104 | Level 1 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A105 | Level 2 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A106 | Level 3 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A107 | Level 4 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A108 | Level 5 Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A109 | Roof Plan | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A201 | North Elevation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A202 | South Elevation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A203 | West Elevation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A204 | East Elevation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A301 | Section 01 | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A302 | Section 02 | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A402 | Door Schedule | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A403 | Windows Schedule | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A013a | Deep Soil Area Diagram | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A013 | Landscape and Deep Soil Calculation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A012 | Communal Open Space Calculation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A011 | Communal Living Area Calculation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | A008 | GFA Calculation | Texco Design | I | 26/11/2025 | | Civil Plans | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S101 | Specifications Sheet | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S200 | General Arrangement Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S300 | Slope Analysis Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-CIV- DWG-04 | Bulk Earthwork Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 |
| S301 | | | | | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S400 | Driveway Long Sections | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S500 | Council Standard Drawings | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-CIV-DWG-04 S600 | Council Standard Drawings | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | Stormwater Plans | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S101 | Specifications Sheet | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S200 | Basement 2 Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S201 | Basement 1 Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S202 | Ground Floor Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S300 | Details Sheet 1 of 5 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S301 | Details Sheet 2 of 5 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S302 | Details Sheet 3 of 5 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S303 | Details Sheet 4 of 5 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | 20240363-S34-SW- DWG-04 | Details Sheet 5 of 5 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 |
| S304 | | | | | | 20240363-S34-SW-DWG-04 S400 | Erosion and Sediment Control Plan | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 4 | 9/9/2025 | | Landscape Plans | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-01 | Hardscape Plan | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 10/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-02 | Landscape Calculation | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 10/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-03 | Landscape Plan/GF | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 10/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-04 | Tree Canopy & Plant Palette | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 10/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-05 | Details 1 | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 9/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-06 | Details 2 | Conzept Landscape Architects | B | 22/7/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-07 | West Elevation | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 9/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-08 | Section 02 | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 10/09/2025 | | LPS34 25 – 129 LP-09 | Specification | Conzept Landscape Architects | E | 9/09/2025 |
| Document Name | | Date | Prepared By | | | DA Acoustic report | Version 2 | 09/09/2025 | PKA Acoustic consulting | | Arboricultural Impact Assessment | Version 6 | 10/09/2025 | Arbor Express | | Geotechnical and Groundwater Statement | | 02/07/2025 | Elite Geosciences | | Plan of Management | | 06/02/2026 | Texco Design | | Position Paper re Solar Access | | 27/08/2025 | Planning Ingenuity | | Response Statement to Accessibility Contentions | Revision A | 13/08/2025 | Ergon Consulting | | Stormwater Treatment Operation & Maintenance Manual | | 13/08/2025 | Ocean Project | | Traffic Sightline Assessment & Supplementary Sightline Assessment | | 01/08/2025 13/08/2025 | Genesis Traffic | | Traffic Impact Assessment | | 01/08/2025 | Genesis Traffic |
| Waste Management Plan | Rev D | 10/09/2025 | Gateway Consulting Group | | Waste Contract Letter | | 08/09/2025 | Sydney Waste Service | | Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Height of Buildings development standard | | 03/12/2025 | Planning Ingenuity | | Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Clause 69(2)(a)(ii) & (b) to the Housing SEPP – Building Setbacks and Separation | | 03/12/2025 | Planning Ingenuity |
The Court orders:
The appeal is upheld.
Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent consent authority that are thrown away as a result of amending the Development Application in the agreed amount of $20,000.00 within 28 days of these orders being made.
Development Application DA24/1023 for the demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 6-storey co-living housing development comprising 114 private rooms, six indoor communal rooms, two levels of basement and ancillary landscaping and stormwater works on Lot C in DP394963, Lot 10 in DP631487 and Lot 1 in DP655353, being 79 Parker Street and 120-122 High Street, Penrith is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
**********
Buildstrong NSW Pty Ltd
Penrith City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1062