Kalloghlian Investments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Kalloghlian Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
M Sonter (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Gough (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Storey and Gough (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/400881

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: Development for the purposes of a dwelling house is proposed on a site at 15 Ocean Road, Palm Beach legally known as Lot 2 DP 412086 (the site). To this end, development application no. DA2023/1532 was lodged by the Applicant in these proceedings, Kalloghlian Investments Pty Ltd (Kalloghlian) with Northern Beaches Council (the Council) on 31 October 2023.

2. Following the refusal of the development application by the Council on 11 June 2024, Kalloghlian filed an appeal in Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction on 28 October 2024 under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

3. The development application seeks consent for the following:

4. Demolition of existing structures on the site

5. Excavation and groundworks

6. Construction of a multi storey dwelling house with swimming pool, front fence and driveway.

7. Associated landscape and site works.

8. In accordance with its usual practice, the Court arranged a mandatory conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) on 13 May 2025, which commenced with an onsite view at which the Court heard public submissions in respect of the proposal.

9. After the onsite view, the conciliation conference convened at Court, during which the parties agreed on certain amendments to the plans before the Court, and the terms of agreed conditions of consent. On this basis, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties.

10. A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was submitted to the Court on 14 May 2024, and amended plans and other documents were filed on the same date.

11. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by Kalloghlian, noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s 34 agreement.

12. 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 prepared a jurisdictional statement to assist the Court in understanding how the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the agreed orders at [56].

13. I formed an opinion of satisfaction that each of the pre-jurisdictional requirements identified by the parties have been met, for the reasons that follow.

14. In accordance with the Northern Beaches Community Participation Plan, the development application was notified to the public between 15 April 2024 and 29 April 2024 in response to which a total of 33 submissions were received by the Council.

15. The development application was made with the written consent of the owner of the site, Mr Avedis Kalloghlian, Director of Kalloghlian Investments Pty Ltd.

16. The site is located in an area identified in the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 (PLEP) as being zoned C4 Environmental Living in which dwelling houses are permitted with consent, where consistent with the objectives for development in the C4 zone. The objectives are in the following terms:

To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

To provide for residential development of a low density and scale integrated with the landform and landscape.

To encourage development that retains and enhances riparian and foreshore vegetation and wildlife corridors.

13. The height standard of 8.5m applicable to the site by operation of cl 4.3 of the PLEP is exceeded by the proposal. A written request authored by BMA Urban in accordance with cl 4.6 of the PLEP identifies a maximum height exceedance of 9.95m and sets out grounds on which the parties submit the Court can be satisfied of those matters to be demonstrated at cl 4.6 of the PLEP (the Height Request).

14. The relevant objectives of the height standard at cl 4.3 of the PLEP are as follows:

(a) to ensure that any building, by virtue of its height and scale, is consistent with the desired character of the locality,

(b) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height and scale of surrounding and nearby development,

(c) to minimise any overshadowing of neighbouring properties,

(d) to allow for the reasonable sharing of views,

(e) to encourage buildings that are designed to respond sensitively to the natural topography,

(f) to minimise the adverse visual impact of development on the natural environment, heritage conservation areas and heritage items.

15. I am satisfied that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (cl 4.6(3)(a) of the PLEP) for the reasons set out in the Height Request because the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance, for reasons summarised as follows:

16. the development is compatible with the height and scale of the desired future character of the locality and the height and scale of surrounding and nearby development, as is evident by the strong connection with both existing and evolving forms of development in the local area and responsiveness to the characteristics of the land which displays a notable fall from the rear towards the street and in response, a staggered building form. The highly articulated built form ensures that the perceptible volume of the development will not be identified as an adverse contribution to bulk the street edge, but rather will facilitate a greater streetscape outcome.

17. the proposed development minimises the overshadowing of neighbouring properties as shown the in the shadowing analysis at Sheets A1501 – A1503 of the Amended Architectural Plans prepared by BJB Architects.

18. the proposed development allows for reasonable sharing of views as shown in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Urbaine dated 24 April 2025 which concludes that the proposed development has been designed in response to the natural topography through the staggering of the floor plates in response to varying land levels; and

19. the proposed development will not have any adverse visual impact to development on the natural environment, heritage conservation areas and heritage items as there is no direct visual association items of heritage and accordingly, the proposed development will in no significant way hinder views to or from heritage items.

20. I am also satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the reasons set out in the Height Request, including:

21. prior excavation of the site has resulted in an effective distortion of the height of buildings plane over the site which has lowered levels on the site;

22. the elements of the proposed development that breach the height limit do so largely as a result of the site’s existing topography which has a significant slope from the rear towards the street. The elements in breach of the height limit are the forward projections of the levels that are otherwise setback and so are unlikely to be highly visible from the public domain when viewed in the context of the slope and adjoining buildings and do not present as visually jarring to the streetscape;

23. the height breach will not result in any adverse impacts on adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, views, privacy, or overshadowing; and

24. the development facilitates the orderly redevelopment of the site and is consistent with the objectives of the EPA Act.

25. Finally, I am also satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone, at [12] because the development: is for a single detached dwelling house with sufficient setbacks from front, rear, and side boundaries, such that the special values of the area are not adversely affected; and is of a compatible scale with recent approvals in the area; and is integrated with the landform and landscape by virtue of the stepped built form, setback of the uppermost level and retention of the natural land form to the rear of the site. Finally, I accept the substantial front setback of 11.5m and rear setback of 7.66m serves to retain and enhance vegetation in wildlife corridors.

26. In forming this opinion of satisfaction, I note the substantial front and rear setback contribute to the height of the built form on the site by preserving those areas of the site for landscape and permeable surfaces.

27. I note here that the Council is satisfied that the Height Request adequately addresses the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of the PLEP, and that the proposed development, as amended, will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the height development standard and the objectives for development in the C4 Zone.

28. Furthermore, the Council does not contend that the contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, or that there is any public benefit in maintaining the development standard, pursuant to cl 4.6(5) of the PLEP.

29. Accordingly, the Council raises no issue regarding cl 4.6 of the PLEP and accepts that a variation of the height development standard under cl 4.3 of the PLEP is justified.

30. I am satisfied under cl 4.6(4) of the PLEP that the Height Request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subcl (3) and that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the height development standard and the objectives for development within the C4 Zone, for the reasons given in the request.

31. I have also considered whether the contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, pursuant to cl 4.6(5) of the PLEP and I find there are no grounds on which the Court should not uphold the Height Request.

32. While the site is not identified as an item of heritage significance in Sch 5 of the PLEP, or within a heritage conservation area, the site is located in the vicinity of three items of significance, being:

33. Item 2270064 'House' at 2 Palm Beach Road;

34. Item 2270065, 'Change room and toilets' at 1 Ocean Road (Ocean Beach Reserve); and

35. Item 2270038, 'Norfolk Island Pines (Araucaria heterophylla)' at Ocean Road, within road reserve.

36. The parties agree that the proposal will have no direct visual association with the items of heritage in the vicinity of the site, and will in no way obstruct views to, from and across the items of relevance, and that no detriment results from the proposal on nearby heritage items. In respect of Aboriginal cultural heritage, the development application was referred to the Aboriginal Heritage Office who advises no impacts are likely to arise from the development. As such, the impact of proposed development on heritage in the terms set out at cl 5.10 of the PLEP has been considered and is acceptable.

37. A statement prepared by AE Consulting Engineers (Flood Statement) states that an assessment of the site undertaken by reference to the ‘Northern Beaches Council 2017 Avalon to Palm Beach Flood Study’ (Flood Study) confirms the site is not impacted by the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event, and so no flood planning controls apply to the site. An excerpt taken from the Flood Study at Appendix A does not show flooding in the vicinity of the site. As such, I am satisfied that the flood planning provisions at cll 5.21 and 5.22 of the PLEP are not engaged.

38. The site is identified on the relevant map at cl 7.1(2) of the PLEP as containing Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils, and within close proximity to Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils. A Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia dated 13 May 2025 (Geotechnical Report) records the results of a Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment which included acid sulfate soils field screening from 26 samples and chromium suite assessment on three samples. The conclusion of the testing is that the site is not affected by acid sulfate soils and so an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is not required for the works.

39. The development proposes excavation for the purpose of the lower two levels of the proposal. The Geotechnical Report assesses the existing drainage patterns on the site, noting that groundwater was not encountered in boreholes, but that surface and subsurface flows are proposed to be diverted and captured in the proposed stormwater system which I understand to be a reference to the 6,500L rainwater tank.

40. A statement prepared by AE Engineers dated 13 May 2025 titled ‘Letter of Response’ sets out the assumptions underlying DRAINS modelling to confirm that pre-development stormwater flow rates for the site were calculated using DRAINS software, with a result of 21L/s and 46L/s for the 5-year and 100-year ARI storm events respectfully. The post development conditions yielded an identical result of 21 L/s for the 5-year event and an improvement for the 100-year event with results showing 45L/s, being a reduction in flow from that of the pre-development condition.

41. Next the Geotechnical Report recommends excavated material be classified in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines, and that an ‘Unexpected Finds Protocol’ be incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent, and that the combination of bored pile shoring and stormwater drainage proposed on the site will ensure adjoining properties are unaffected by the proposal.

42. As landslide risk is considered a potential impact of the development that should be avoided, minimised or mitigated, the Geotechnical Report cites the bored pile shoring and modelling of lateral deflections evident in the Structural Plans prepared by NEC as appropriate means by which impact is avoided. Accordingly, on the basis of the following documents, I consider those matters at cl 7.2(3) of the PLEP in respect of earthworks to be satisfactorily addressed:

43. Supplementary Statement prepared by prepared by Geotechnical Consultants Australia dated 13 May 2025

44. Amended Stormwater Plans prepared by AE Consulting dated 6 May 2025

45. Structural Plans prepared by National Engineering Consultants dated 6 May 2025

46. The site is also identified on the relevant map at cl 7.5(2) of the PLEP identified on the Coastal Risk Planning Map as being within the Wave Inundation zone. On the basis of the Coastal Risk Management Report prepared by Horton Coastal Engineering dated 19 October 2023, I am satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause detrimental increases in coastal risks to other properties and is not likely to alter coastal processes. Neither will the impacts of coastal hazards be to the detriment of the environment as the proposed development is founded on bedrock and is highly unlikely to be undermined by erosion/recession. Furthermore, a number of measures to reduce the coastal inundation damage have been incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent at Condition 17 and 18. I am also satisfied that the proposed development:

47. incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from coastal risks and will have an acceptable level of risk to both property and life, in relation to all identifiable coastline hazards as the proposed development continues to be sufficiently landward to not be at significant risk of erosion/recession;

48. is likely to avoid or minimise adverse effects from the impact of coastal processes and the exposure to coastal hazards as the proposed development is sufficiently landward and has appropriate measures to deal with inundation risks, to avoid an unacceptable exposure to coastal hazards over the design life;

49. is at an acceptable low risk of damage for an acceptably long life and therefore it is not necessary to provide for the relocation, modification or removal of the development to adapt to the impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards; and

50. has had regard to the impacts of sea level rise as coastal hazard lines and wave runup levels have incorporated sea level rise projections.

51. Clause 7.7(3) of the PLEP sets out matters to be considered when deciding whether the development takes into account all geotechnical risks relevant to the site. The documents cited at [28] assist me in this task, and for the reasons that follow I am satisfied that the development will appropriately manage waste water, stormwater and drainage across the land so as not to affect the rate, volume and quality of water leaving the land.

52. Firstly, the excavation proposed is shored by means of closely spaced bored piles that have been modelled for the degree of deflection to be expected once structural loads are applied.

53. Secondly, the parties agree, and I am satisfied, that the proposed development has incorporated appropriate drainage methods to ensure all surface and subsurface water flows are diverted away from the slopes, adjoining properties and proposed development, into a stormwater drainage system or appropriate discharge as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report has been incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent at Condition 13 and 55.

54. Thirdly, the Amended Stormwater Plans include appropriate stormwater infrastructure to allow for the capture, storage (via rainwater tank), treatment (through a sump sediment trap and sediment fence) and discharge of stormwater into the existing Council drainage infrastructure on Ocean Road at a lesser rate of flow that the pre-development rates.

55. On the basis of those matters outlined above, I am also satisfied that the development is designed and sited to minimise the risks associated with excavation and construction of the development.

56. I am also satisfied that the site, being located on a site currently serviced by essential services of a kind at cl 7.10(a)-(e) will continue to be serviced by such essential services in accordance with cl 7.10 of the PLEP. External referrals to Transport for NSW dated 24 November 2023 and Ausgrid dated 7 November has resulted in no objections from those authorities who have otherwise provided general terms of approval.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

39. Chapter 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) details provisions regarding the preservation and management of vegetation in non-rural areas. The proposal seeks to retain all trees on the site, with the exception of 15 palm trees as identified in the Landscape plans prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects.

40. “Palms” are identified as exempt species in the Northern Beaches Council exempt tree species list. As such, Palms are considered suitable for removal without consent unless identified as a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. The palm trees located on the site are not identified as a heritage item, nor is the site located within a heritage area as shown in Heritage Map HER_015, and accordingly consent is not required for their removal.

41. While not a requirement of the Biodiversity SEPP, a Flora and Fauna Assessment prepared by Narla Environmental dated September 2023 includes an assessment of potential impact of the development on the Grey-headed Flying Fox as the site is in proximity to identified locations, concluding that any direct or indirect impacts to threatened fauna are unlikely.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

42. The site is identified within the coastal use area, and within the coastal environment area that are dealt with under Ch 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Hazards SEPP).

43. For reasons similar to those set out at [34]-[37], I consider the integrity and resilience of biophysical, hydrological, and ecological environment unlikely to be adversely impacted, and that stormwater treatment and discharge so described ameliorate potential impacts on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna, and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms, and on existing public open space, and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability. I also accept that, for reasons similar to those stated at [18], the stepped built form, substantial setbacks to the front and rear of the site and area of landscape does not adversely affect coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes of the area. Finally, I note the advice of the Aboriginal Heritage Office in respect of Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices, and places.

44. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise adverse impacts of a kind referred to in s 2.10(1) of the Hazards SEPP.

45. For reasons that are virtually identical, I also consider those matters at s 2.11(1) of the Hazards SEPP to be adequately addressed. On the basis of those aspects of height, bulk, scale, and compatibility with the desired future character of Palm Beach set out at [15], I regard the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast appropriately considered, as is overshadowing and the retention of views from public places to the foreshore. As such, I am satisfied that the development is designed, sited, and will be managed to minimise any adverse impact of a kind set out at s 2.11(1) of the Hazards SEPP.

46. Finally, for the reasons set out at [32]-[37], I am satisfied that the risk of coastal hazards is not likely to increase on the subject site, and is in accordance with s 2.12 of the Hazards SEPP.

47. I have considered whether the land is contaminated in accordance with s 4.6 of the Hazards SEPP. On the basis of the statements contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by BMA Urban dated October 2023, and the agreed conditions of consent that deal with hazardous building materials, I am satisfied that the site is suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed to be carried out.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

48. Pursuant to s 2.48(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport SEPP), before determining a development application, the consent authority must under s 2.48(2)(a) give written notice to the electricity supply authority and under s 2.48(2)(b), take into consideration any response to that notice.

49. The development application was referred to Ausgrid who provided their concurrence on 7 November 2023 and do not raise an objection in their response, confirming the proposed development is acceptable subject to compliance with the relevant Ausgrid Network Standards and SafeWork NSW Codes of Practice. This compliance has been incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent at Condition 4(m).

50. Pursuant to s 2.119 of the Transport SEPP, I am satisfied the proposed development does not benefit from an alternative means of vehicular access than access to Ocean Road, and that the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of Ocean Road will not be adversely affected by the development as the proposal does not propose significant changes to the existing vehicular access, and will not create any perceptible level of impact to the surrounding road network, and that as the proposal is for a dwelling house on the site of an existing dwelling house, with a setback of 11.5m from the frontage of the site, I am satisfied that the proposal has been appropriately located and designed, and includes measures to ameliorate potential traffic noise and vibration.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

51. The application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate (Cert No. 1795144S prepared by Paul & David Consulting Pty Ltd dated 13 May 2025) in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable Buildings SEPP), supported by a NatHERS Certificate.

52. An embodied energy report is a part of the BASIX Certificate, such that the Court can be satisfied that the embodied emissions attributable to the proposed development have been quantified in accordance with s 2.1(5) of the Sustainable Buildings SEPP.

Conclusion

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. The Court notes that the Northern Beaches Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved, under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending Development Application DA2023/1532 in accordance with the documents listed below:

| Amended Architectural Plans | | Plan name | Drawing ref | Revision | Date | Prepared by | | Cover Sheet | A1000 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | BASIX Commitments | A1001 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Plan | A1011 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Analysis Plan | A1012 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Analysis – Existing Conditions | A1013 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Analysis – Site and Context | A1014 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Analysis – Development Comparison | A1015 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Demolition Plan | A1021 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Erosion and Sediment Control Plan | A1022 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Excavation Plan | A1023 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Lower Ground Floor Plan | A1101 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Upper Ground Floor Plan | A1102 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | First Floor Plan | A1103 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Second Floor Plan | A1104 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Roof Plan | A1105 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Section | A1201 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Section | A1202 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Section | A1203 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Section | A1204 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | East Elevation (Front Elevation) | A1301 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | West Elevation (Rear Elevation) | A1302 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | North Elevation | A1303 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | South Elevation | A1304 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Streetscape Elevations | A1305 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Streetscape 3D Montage | A1306 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Landscape Calculation | A1401 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Height Plane Analysis | A1402 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Shadow Diagrams – 21 June – 9am | A1501 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Shadow Diagrams – 21 June – 12pm | A1502 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Shadow Diagrams – 21 June – 3pm | A1503 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | View from Sun Analysis 1 | A1504 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | View from Sun Analysis 2 | A1505 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | View from Sun Analysis 3 | A1506 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | View from Sun Analysis 4 | A1507 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Waste Management Plan | A1601 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Setback Analysis | A1701 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Site Setback Analysis | A1702 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | 3D Perspective | A2001 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | 3D Perspective | A2002 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | 3D Perspective | A2003 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | 3D Perspective | A2004 | J | 17 April 2025 | BJB Architects | | Amended Landscaping Plans | | Plan name | Drawing Ref | Revision | Date | Prepared by | | Site Conditions | LDPA 21 – 029 / 1 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Hardscape Plans | LDPA 21 – 029 / 2 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Site Calculations | LDPA 21 – 029 / 3 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Landscape Plan – GF & Level 1 | LDPA 21 – 029 / 4 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Landscape Plan – Level 2 | LDPA 21 – 029 / 5 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Details 1 | LDPA 21 – 029 / 6 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Street Elevations | LDPA 21 – 029 / 7 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Specification | LDPA 21 – 029 / 8 | I | 8 May 2025 | Conzept Landscape Architects | | Amended Stormwater Plans | | Plan name | Drawing ref | Revision | Date | Prepared by | | Stormwater Drainage Plan Ground Floor Level | SW10 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Drainage Plan Upper Ground Floor Level | SW20 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Drainage Plan First Floor Level | SW30 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Drainage Plan Second Floor Level | SW40 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Drainage Plan Roof Level | SW50 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Erosion & Sediment Control Details | SW60 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Sections & Details Sheet 2 | SW70 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Stormwater Sections & Details Sheet 3 | SW80 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Catchment Plan | SW90 | B | 6 May 2025 | AE Consulting Engineers | | Structural Plans | | Plan name | Drawing Ref | Revision | Date | Prepared by | | General Notes Sheet 1 of 2 | ST-100 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | General Notes Sheet 2 of 2 | ST-101 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Footing Plan and Details | ST-200 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Shoring Plan and Details | ST-201 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Shoring Sections and Details | ST-202 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Shoring Elevations Sheet 1 of 2 | ST-203 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Shoring Elevations Sheet 1 of 2 | ST-204 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Retaining Walls Details | ST-205 | 01 | 6 May 2025 | National Engineering Consultants | | Survey Plan | | Plan name | Drawing Ref | Revision | Date | Prepared by | | Plan Showing Detail & Levels over Lot 2 in DP412086 | 230118-1B | 1B | 18 February 2025 | Total Surveying Solutions | | Amended Reports | | Report name | Revision | Prepared by | | Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Height | 5 May 2025 | BMA Urban | | Visual Impact Assessment | 24 April 2025 | Urbaine | | Statement on Methodology of Photomontages | 19 April 2025 | Rockhunter | | Statement regarding Flood Planning Controls | April 2025 | AE Consulting | | Geotechnical Investigation Report (Rev C) | 13 May 2025 | Geotechnical Consultants Australia | | Addendum Geotechnical Statement | 13 May 2025 | Geotechnical Consultants Australia | | BASIX Certificate | 13 May 2025 | Paul&David Consulting Pty Ltd | | NatHERS Certificate | 13 May 2025 | Paul&David Consulting Pty Ltd | | Statement regarding Stormwater Calculations | 13 May 2025 | AE Consulting | | DRAINS Model | 13 May 2025 | AE Consulting |

1. The amended plans and other documents filed with the Court 14 May 2025.

Orders

56. The court orders that:

57. The Applicant’s written request prepared by BMA Urban dated 5 May 2025, pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2012 (PLEP), seeking to vary the development standard for height of buildings as set out at cl 4.3 of the PLEP, is upheld.

58. The appeal is upheld.

59. Development Consent is granted to DA2023/1532 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling house including swimming pool at 15 Ocean Road, Palm Beach subject to conditions at Annexure A.

T Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

**********