//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWLEC 1172
appellant. The appeal was upheld. The amended development application was determined by a grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $18,000 for...
The Council had refused Kennards’ proposal to add to its self-storage facility. During the Court proceedings, the parties amended the proposal and reached agreement on a consent outcome. The Commissioner checked whether that agreed outcome was one the Court could lawfully make, considering the planning matters set out in the judgment. Satisfied that it could, the Commissioner upheld the appeal and granted consent subject to conditions. The applicant also had to pay the Council $18,000 in agreed costs arising from the amended application. The judgment expressly says the Commissioner did not decide the merits of the issues that had originally divided the parties.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,975 words · generated 02/10/2026
Kennards Self Storage Pty Limited brought a Class 1 appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) after Sutherland Shire Council refused its development application. The proposal concerned alterations and additions to an existing four-storey self-storage development at 169–173 Port Hacking Road, Miranda. It included four additional levels for storage units, common access and amenities, two business identification signs, and nine additional car parking spaces ([1]).
3 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
The development application was lodged on 5 April 2024. It was publicly notified, and one submission was received. The Council refused it on 31 May 2025. Kennards commenced the appeal on 23 July 2025, within the appeal period prescribed by s 8.10 of the EPA Act ([3]–[6]).
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conference was terminated on 11 March 2026, after which the parties reached agreement on an outcome acceptable to both of them ([7]). The application was amended. The changes included additional landscaping, a reduction in building height so that only the lift overrun exceeded the height standard, revised façade treatment and urban design, and a changed layout for levels 3, 4 and 5 ([8]).
The Commissioner’s decision was not a contested merits judgment determining which party’s original planning arguments were stronger. Rather, it addressed whether the agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. The Commissioner was satisfied that it could, and made orders reflecting the agreement ([10]–[11], [42]–[43]).
The final orders upheld the appeal, granted consent to the amended development application subject to the conditions in Annexure A, and required Kennards to pay the Council $18,000 for costs thrown away as a result of the amended application ([45]).
The central statutory question was whether the agreed outcome passed the test in s 34(3) of the LEC Act. The Commissioner stated that the Court “must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision” if the decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions ([10]). The Commissioner concluded that this condition was satisfied ([11], [42]).
To reach that conclusion, the judgment addressed a range of planning considerations. These included owner’s consent, contamination, catchment controls, signage, traffic and access, development standards, flood planning, acid sulfate soils, earthworks, stormwater, landscaping, urban design, public submissions and the public interest.
For contamination, a site investigation by Broadcrest Consulting concluded that the land was suitable for the proposed development subject to recommendations. The parties relied on conditions requiring compliance with those recommendations. On that material, the Commissioner was satisfied that the requirements in s 4.6(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 had been considered and that the land was suitable for the proposal ([13]–[16]).
The Commissioner accepted the parties’ position that the application addressed the relevant Georges River Catchment controls and signage assessment requirements, having regard to the environmental assessment and supporting plans ([17]–[21]). For the classified-road issue, the judgment records that vehicles would access the site from Kiama Street, while the existing Port Hacking Road access could be used for entry but not exit. It also refers to a traffic assessment concluding that there were no traffic or parking issues that should prevent approval ([22]).
The proposal did not comply with the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SLEP) height and floor space ratio standards. The height standard was 16 metres, while the amended proposal was 17 metres; the judgment says the exceedance related only to the lift overrun ([24]). The Commissioner accepted the height request’s stated grounds, including that the variation was minor, related to site topography and the existing building form, would not cause material streetscape impacts, and allowed equitable access to the uppermost level ([25]–[26]).
For floor space ratio (FSR), the judgment identifies a 1:1 standard and an existing FSR of 1.8:1 across the two allotments. The amended proposal had an FSR of 2.24:1 ([27]). The Commissioner accepted the request’s conclusions that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that sufficient environmental planning grounds existed. Those grounds included the location of the additional FSR within a compliant building envelope, compatibility with the locality, no unreasonable intensification, and the fact that the amenity impacts had been established by the approved development ([28]–[29]). These are findings about the material and agreed application in this case, not a general ruling about all proposals with similar variations.
The Commissioner also recorded the parties’ positions on other SLEP provisions. The site was technically within the flood planning area, but the proposed footprint was outside it, the development floor was above the design flood level, and no adverse flooding impacts were identified ([30]). The judgment records that the acid sulfate soils, earthworks, stormwater, landscaping and urban design matters had been considered or addressed ([31]–[35]).
Finally, the Commissioner considered public submissions. Concerns included the proposal’s scale, neighbouring daylight, stormwater, property damage, the southern boundary setback, and possible effects on a church’s community food program and playgroup ([38]–[39]). The judgment identifies conditions concerning a construction management plan and dilapidation reports, and records the parties’ position that stormwater and impacts on the neighbouring administration building had been addressed ([40]). The Commissioner stated that the written and oral submissions had been taken into consideration ([40]).
The judgment does not undertake a historical survey of the law before this decision, nor does it identify a change to the law after it. Its legal explanation is principally an application of the statutory framework identified in the judgment to an agreed outcome.
The most direct statement of the applicable procedural rule is the Commissioner’s explanation of s 34(3) of the LEC Act: the Court must give effect to the parties’ decision if it is a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions ([10]). The judgment’s contribution in this case is to show how the Commissioner approached that threshold in a planning appeal after conciliation: relevant planning and jurisdictional matters were considered, then the Court made orders reflecting the parties’ agreement ([11]–[42]).
The judgment is equally clear about what it did not decide. The Commissioner said there was no requirement to make, and no merits assessment was made of, the issues originally in dispute ([43]). Accordingly, it should not be read as resolving contested planning questions beyond the matters the Commissioner needed to consider to be satisfied that the agreed decision was within the Court’s functions.
The decision also records the treatment of two development-standard variations under cl 4.6 of the SLEP. It accepts the specific height and FSR requests made for this application ([24]–[29]). It does not set out a broader doctrinal analysis, cite other judgments on cl 4.6, or announce a new test beyond the requirements it attributes to that clause. Any account of a wider before-and-after legal position would require sources beyond this judgment.
At [10], the Commissioner states: “I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision” if it is one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In plain English, agreement between the parties was not enough by itself. The Court still had to be satisfied that the proposed outcome was within its lawful decision-making role.
At [11], the Commissioner says they were satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could make. The following paragraphs set out the considerations supporting that view. They include statutory planning matters, supporting technical material, proposed conditions, and the parties’ submissions.
At [26] and [29], the Commissioner records satisfaction that the applicant had demonstrated the relevant grounds for the height and FSR variations under cl 4.6 of the SLEP. In plain English, the Commissioner accepted the reasons given for not meeting those standards in this amended application. The decision does not establish that comparable reasons would necessarily succeed for a different site or proposal.
At [40], the Commissioner says the written and oral submissions had been taken into consideration and identifies matters addressed by conditions or by the parties’ material. This shows that the objector’s concerns were part of the assessment, although the judgment does not provide a separate determination of each concern as a contested issue.
At [43], the Commissioner states that no merits assessment was made of the issues originally in dispute. This is important to the character of the decision. The Court checked whether it could make the agreed decision; it did not deliver a reasoned judgment choosing between the parties’ original competing merits cases.
The decision is most directly relevant to the procedural situation it describes: a Class 1 development appeal in which parties reach agreement after a s 34 conciliation process, and the Court must determine whether the agreed result is one it could make under s 34(3) of the LEC Act ([7], [10]–[11]).
The judgment also illustrates the kinds of planning material that may be addressed when an agreed development-consent outcome is put before the Court. In this case, those matters included a proposal that departed from height and FSR standards, technical reports concerning contamination and traffic, planning controls applying to the site, submissions from an objector, and conditions of consent ([13]–[41]). The decision’s specific findings are tied to the proposal, plans, evidence and conditions before the Commissioner.
It is not a general rule that party agreement guarantees consent, that any variation request will be accepted, or that objections can be addressed through conditions in every case. The statutory threshold remained whether the decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The Commissioner’s satisfaction followed consideration of the particular material summarised in the judgment.
The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases, and it gives no information about whether subsequent courts have followed, applied, distinguished or otherwise treated it. It also contains no cited authorities whose later treatment can be traced from the text provided. A reliable account of subsequent judicial treatment therefore cannot be given on the basis of this judgment alone.
The judgment itself is categorised as a principal judgment and provides a case-specific account of s 34(3), but that does not establish what later courts have said about it. Any later-treatment analysis would require additional judgments or a current case-law source. No such material is included here, so no claim about subsequent treatment is made.
The judgment does not explain the underlying factual and legal disagreements that led to the Council’s original refusal beyond the topics reflected in the planning assessment and submissions. It says that no merits assessment of the original disputes was made ([43]). As a result, the reasoning does not reveal how the Court would have resolved those disputes had the parties not agreed.
The judgment also does not reproduce the conditions in Annexure A. It confirms that consent is subject to those conditions, and refers in the body of the reasons to particular conditions concerning construction management and dilapidation reports, but the full conditions cannot be analysed from the text supplied ([40], [45]). Their detailed operation, timing and interaction are therefore outside the available record.
Nor does the judgment provide a general account of the evidentiary threshold for future s 34(3) agreements or a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing cl 4.6 requests. It records the Commissioner’s satisfaction on the particular height and FSR requests, with reference to the parties’ supporting documents and grounds ([24]–[29]). Broader conclusions would need to be checked against other legal sources.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on, relying on, or using this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Kennards Self Storage Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1172
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 20 March 2026
Date of orders: 31 March 2026
Decision date: 31 March 2026
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Targett C
Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amended development application in the agreed amount of $18,000 pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) Development Application No DA24/0154, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing self storage facility and business identification signs at 169-173 Port Hacking Road, Miranda NSW 2228, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
Catchwords: APPEAL – Development application –alterations and additions - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.10, 8.15
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6, Pt 6.2
State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021, Ch 3, ss 3.1, 3.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.119
Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.14, 6.16
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kennards Self Storage Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
E Clarke (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/281465
Publication restriction: Nil
This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the applicant against the respondent’s refusal of the applicant’s development application DA24/0154 (Development Application) for alterations and additions to the approved four storey self-storage development including four additional levels to include additional self-storage units, common access, amenities, two business identification signs and nine additional carparking spaces on land legally identified as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 239421 and Lot 4 in Deposited Plan 239421, also known as 169 Port Hacking Road, Miranda (Subject Land).
The Court has power to dispose of these proceedings under its Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).
The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 5 April 2024.
The Development Application was publicly notified with the last date of public submissions being 2 May 2024. One submission was received in response to the notification.
On 31 May 2025, the respondent refused the Development Application.
On 23 July 2025, the proceedings were commenced by the applicant, being within the appeal period prescribed by s 8.10 of the EPA Act.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the LEC Act between the parties, which was terminated on 11 March 2026. Following this, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.
Further amended plans and documents were provided to the Court on 17 and 23 March 2026 (Amended Development Application) cited at [44]. The amendments can be summarised as follows:
provision of additional landscaping (over 10% of site area);
reduction in height of the building so that the only height exceedance relates to the lift overrun;
amended façade treatment and urban design; and
amended layout for levels 3, 4 and 5.
The decision agreed upon is for the grant of consent to the Amended Development Application, subject to conditions of consent. The signed agreement is supported by an agreed jurisdictional statement.
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.
Section 4.6(1) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:
it has considered whether the land is contaminated; and
if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and
if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.
The proposal is accompanied by a Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation prepared by Broadcrest Consulting dated October 2024 (DSI) which involved drilling three boreholes in the western part of the site. The DSI concludes (at p 33) that the Subject Land is considered suitable for the proposed development, subject to recommendations.
The parties are satisfied that the Subject Land is suitable for the proposed use. Further, conditions of consent have been imposed to require compliance with the recommendations set out in the DSI (see Conditions 4 and 39-41 of the agreed conditions).
Having regard to the DSI and agreed conditions, I am satisfied that the matters in s 4.6(1) of the RH SEPP have been considered and the Subject Land is suitable for the proposed development.
Chapter 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (BC SEPP) applies to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is located within the Georges River Catchment.
Division 2 in Pt 6.2 sets out general controls applying to development in a regulated catchment. The parties submit, and I accept, that the matters for consideration and satisfaction under Pt 6.2 have been addressed in Appendix A of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 15 January 2024 (SEE) and the Stormwater Plans prepared by Inline Hydraulic Services dated 12 October 2023 (Stormwater Plans).
Section 3.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021 (Industry SEPP) relevantly provides that a consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
the signage is consistent with the objectives of Chapter 3 set out in s 3.1(1)(a); and
the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Sch 5.
The parties submit, and I accept that, having regard to the analysis in Annexure B of the SEE, the proposed signage is consistent with the objectives of Ch 3 and the assessment criteria in Sch 5, including that it is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area, compatible with the scale and proportion of the proposed building additions, and will not have any impact on safety.
In determining the Amended Development Application, I confirm that I am satisfied of the matters set out in s 3.6 of the Industry SEPP.
Section 2.119 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport SEPP) applies to the proposed development as the Subject Land has a frontage to a classified road (Port Hacking Road). The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters set out in s 2.119 have been satisfied having regard to the fact that the proposed development:
will provide vehicular access from Kiama Street (see SEE, p 20) and vehicles will only be able to enter the Subject Land through the existing Port Hacking Road access but not exit the site through that access; and
the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Stanbury Traffic Planning dated 30 January 2023 (Traffic Assessment) (Class 1 Application, tab 10) considers the matters in s 2.119 of the Transport SEPP and concludes (at p 23) that “there are no traffic or parking related issues that should prevent approval of the subject use of the site”.
• To provide a range of industrial, warehouse, logistics and related land uses.
• To ensure the efficient and viable use of land for industrial uses.
• To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.
• To encourage employment opportunities.
• To enable limited non-industrial land uses that provide facilities and services to meet the needs of businesses and workers.
• To enhance the visual appearance of the area by ensuring new development achieves high architectural and landscape standards.
• To minimise the impact of development within the zone on areas of environmental significance.
Pursuant to cl 4.3 of the SLEP, the maximum building height permissible for the Subject Land is 16m (Height Standard). The parties agree that the Amended Development Application proposes a height of 17m and therefore does not comply with the Height Standard. The Amended Development Application is accompanied by a cl 4.6 request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 16 December 2025 (Height Request).
The Height Request provides a detailed assessment of the Amended Development Application’s compliance with the matters raised in cl 4.6(3) of the SLEP and concludes that:
Compliance with the Height Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances because the Amended Development Application satisfies the objectives of the Height Standard and objectives of the E4 zone, notwithstanding the variation.
There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention including:
(a) the extent of non-compliance is minor, relates only to the lift overrun, and does not result in any adverse impacts over and above a compliant building height; (b) the variation is as a result of the topography and existing building form; (c) the variation will not result in any material streetscape impact; and (d) the non-compliance allows equitable access to the uppermost level and provides orderly and economic use of the land.
In respect of the Height Request, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the Height Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the Height Standard in accordance with the requirements under cl 4.6(3) of the SLEP.
Pursuant to s 4.4 of the SLEP, a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of 1:1 applies to the Subject Land (FSR Standard). Noting that the existing building on the Subject Land already has a FSR of 1.8:1 across both allotments, the Amended Development Application proposes a FSR of 2.24:1 and therefore does not comply with the FSR Standard. The Amended Development Application is accompanied by a cl 4.6 request prepared by Planning Ingenuity dated 17 February 2026 (FSR Request).
The FSR Request provides a detailed assessment of the Amended Development Application’s compliance with the matters raised in cl 4.6(3) of the SLEP and concludes that:
Compliance with the FSR Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances because the Amended Development Application satisfies the objectives of the FSR Standard and objectives of the E4 zone, notwithstanding the variation.
There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention because:
(a) the FSR variation is located within a compliant building envelope (with the exception of the minor height exceedance due to the lift overrun); (b) the proposal will be compatible with the character of the locality, despite the variation; (c) the non-compliance will not result in any unreasonable intensification; and (d) the range of amenity impacts have been established by the approved development.
In respect of the FSR Request, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the FSR Standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the FSR Standard in accordance with the requirements under cl 4.6(3) of the SLEP.
Pursuant to cl 5.21 of the SLEP relating to flood planning, although the Subject Land is technically located within the flood planning area (FPA), the parties agree, and I accept, that:
the footprint of the proposed development is located outside of the FPA;
the floor of the development is located above the design flood level; and
there are no adverse flooding impacts having regard to matters for satisfaction and consideration under cl 5.21(2) and (3) of the SLEP respectively.
Pursuant to cl 6.1(2) of the SLEP relating to Acid Sulfate Soils, the Subject Land is mapped as Class 5 land (see SEE p 48). The parties agree, and I accept, that the proposal is not expected to lower the water table on any adjoining Class 1 to 4 land and there is no impediment to the grant of consent having regard to cl 6.1 of the SLEP.
Pursuant to cl 6.2 of the SLEP relating to earthworks, the parties agree, and I accept, that the matters listed in cl 6.2(3) have been considered, having regard to the SEE (p 48) and Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Broadcrest Consulting dated 11 July 2023.
Pursuant to cl 6.4 of the SLEP relating to stormwater management, a consent authority must be satisfied of various matters before granting development consent. The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters listed in cl 6.4(3) of the SLEP are satisfied having regard to the Stormwater Plans and the SEE (pp 48-49).
Pursuant to cl 6.14 of the SLEP relating to landscaped areas in certain residential, employment, conservation and waterway zones, 10% of the site area must be landscaped area. The parties agree that the Amended Development Application complies with this standard.
Pursuant to cl 6.16 of the SLEP relating to urban design-general, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority has considered the matters set out in cl 6.16(1). The parties agree, and I accept that, the Amended Development Application has appropriately addressed these considerations having regard to the analysis in the SEE (at p 50).
The matters set out in s 4.15(1)(a), (b) and (c) have been considered above to the extent they are relevant to the Amended Development Application (see SEE, pp 23-34).
As set out at [4] above, in relation to s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act, the Development Application was publicly notified with the last date of public submissions being 2 May 2024. One submission was received in response to the notification raising concerns regarding:
inaccuracies in the SEE and its analysis of impacts on surrounding properties;
excessive massing which will impact neighbouring daylight access;
appropriate stormwater management;
damage to neighbouring properties; and
the proposed nil setback on the southern side boundary.
The Court also heard from an objector at the conciliation conference on 20 March 2026 who raised issues largely consistent with the written submission. A further written submission was provided by the same objector on 20 March 2026 following the conciliation conference, raising concerns regarding the proposed development’s impact on the church’s community food program and playgroup.
I am satisfied that the written and oral submissions received have been taken into consideration in the assessment and determination of the Amended Development Application, noting that:
Condition 5 of the agreed conditions requires the preparation and submission of a construction management plan prior to commencing works;
Condition 28 requires dilapidation reports to be prepared by adjoining properties;
the parties agree that the Stormwater Plans address any stormwater concerns; and
the parties agree that the impacts to the neighbouring administration building are acceptable having regard to the zoning of the Subject Land and the fact that the proposal does not result in additional impacts to neighbours than a height compliant development.
The public interest has been considered for the purposes of s 4.15(e) of the EPA Act (see SS, p 34).
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.
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 Court notes that:
The respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the applicant amending development application no DA24/0154 to include the following documents:
| TAB | DOCUMENT | DATE | | 1 | Amended Architectural drawings prepared by Martin McGrane Architects, as follows: | Individually dated: | | Plan No. | Title | Issue | Date | | DA00 | Precinct + Site Analysis Plan | E | 9 February 2026 | | DA01 | Floor Plans – Ground + L1 | J | 19 January 2026 | | DA02 | Floor Plans – L2 + L3 | M | 19 January 2026 | | DA03 | Floor Plan – L4 + L5 | J | 19 January 2026 | | DA04 | Roof Plan | I | 8 December 2025 | | DA05 | Elevations | J | 19 January 2026 | | DA06 | Sections | K | 19 January 2026 | | DA07 | Height Control Review | H | 4 February 2026 | | DA08 | Proposed External Finishes | K | 19 January 2026 | | DA09 | Driveway Cross Section | B | 26 October 2025 | | DA13 | Site Plan | B | 4 February 2026 | | - | Images for Discussion | B | 19 January 2026 | | 2 | DA LAN | Landscape Area | L | 8 December 2025 | | 3 | Landscape Plans prepared by Studio 151 | | LDA001 | Ground Floor | 3 | 16 December 2025 | | LDA100 | Level 2 | 6 | | LDA101 | Level 5 | 6 | | 4 | Amended Fire Services Methodology (Rev 7), prepared by Sparks + Partners Consulting Engineers | 20 January 2026 | | 5 | Design Statement Letter, prepared by Sparks + Partners Consulting Engineers | 21 January 2026 | | 6 | Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Statement – Floor Space Ratio, prepared by Planning Ingenuity | 17 February 2026 | | 7 | Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Statement – Height of Buildings, prepared by Planning Ingenuity | 16 December 2025 | | 8 | Updated Owner’s Consent | 22 March 2026 | | 9 | Amended Fire Services Methodology (Rev 7), prepared by Sparks + Partners Consulting Engineers | | FSK-03 | Fire Services Methodology GF & L1 Sprinkler Services – Brigade Hardstand Location | 8 | 10 March 2026 | | FSK-04 | ire Services Methodology L2 & L3 Sprinkler Services - Brigade Hardstand Location | 8 | | 10 | Brigade Hardstand prepared by Sparks + Partners Consulting Engineers | 16 March 2026 |
The Court orders that:
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amended development application in the agreed amount of $18,000 pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No DA24/0154, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing self storage facility and business identification signs at 169-173 Port Hacking Road, Miranda NSW 2228, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
**********
Annexure A (361 KB, pdf)
Kennards Self Storage Pty Limited
Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1172
The appeal was upheld. The amended development application was determined by a grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $18,000 for costs thrown away as a result of the amended application, pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.