/

/

NSWNSWLEC

Livcorp Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1294

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2025-05-02|Before: Washington C

View on NSW CaselawOr email me a plain-English summary of this case

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2025-05-02

Before

Washington C

Catchwords

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – dwelling
house – agreement between the parties – orders

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: 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.

Catchwords

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – dwellinghouse – agreement between the parties – orders

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Livcorp Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1294

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30-31 January 2025

Date of orders: 02 May 2025

Decision date: 02 May 2025

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Washington C

Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development consent is granted to Development Application DA/554/2024 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house at Lot 12 in DP 11004, known as 47 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal NSW 2260, subject to conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – dwelling house – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7,
Coastal Management Act 2016, s 5
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34AA, 34
Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 2.7, 4.3, 4.6, 7.1, 7.6
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 27, 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazard) 2021, ss 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.6

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Livcorp Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)

Livcorp Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1294 | Case summary | Zoe

The development application was made with the written consent of the owner of the land.
The application was adequately notified from 7-21 June 2024. Twenty submissions were received, but no oral submissions were made at the commencement of proceedings. Based on the amended application, the parties submit, and I accept, that the development as amended adequately responds to the concerns raised in the written submissions. In particular, I note that the parties are satisfied that the proposed development does not rely on a sea wall, and the visual impact of the proposed development from the beach has been considered, and reduced through the conciliation process. The parties agree that the amended application does not necessitate renotification.
The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP), within which development for the purposes of a dwelling house is permissible with consent. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this zone.
Demolition is permitted with consent pursuant to cl 2.7 of the CCLEP.
Pursuant to CCLEP cl 4.3, a maximum building height of 8.5m applies to the subject site. The proposed development, as amended, exceeds this at four points due to roof elements reaching heights of 8.98m, 9.04m, 9.24m and 9.31m, variations of between 5.6 to 9.5%.
As a result of this exceedance, cl 4.6(3) of the CCLEP allows the applicant to request a contravention of this development standard. This request must demonstrate that compliance with the height of buildings development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. To that end, the applicants have submitted a written request prepared by Coastal Planning and Consulting as attachment A to the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) (the cl 4.6 request). Pursuant to CCLEP cl 4.6, I am satisfied that:
The cl 4.6 request demonstrates that compliance with the Height of Buildings development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because the proposal complies with the relevant objectives of both the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the Height of Buildings development standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance. Further, the non-compliance will not be perceptible from the beach, street or surrounding properties, and does not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties or the beach due to its siting and limited extent.
The cl 4.6 request establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard by demonstrating that the breach of building height is minor in nature in both qualitative and quantitative terms and does not result in any adverse impacts on adjoining properties. Further, it does not result in a dwelling that is excessive in terms of bulk and scale within its context.
The contravention is therefore justified by a lack of adverse impact on the neighbouring residents, by the breach of the standard being minor in nature, and by the resulting contribution and compatibility with the context.
The written request further demonstrates that the proposal is in the public interest as it is consistent with the relevant objectives of both the zone and the development standard.
Pursuant to CCLEP cl 7.1, the site is identified as Class 5 on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map, however from the parties’ submission I accept that the proposed works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on any adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land.
Pursuant to CCLEP cl 7.6, the parties submit and I accept that the site is currently serviced by all listed essential services.
Pursuant to s 2.10 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP), the site is mapped as within the coastal environment area. From the information contained in the SEE by Coastal Planning and Consulting, dated December 2023 and the Coastal Engineering Advice report by Horton Coastal Engineering dated 16 April 2024 (Coastal Engineering Advice), I accept that the matters listed in s 2.10(1) have been considered, and that as required, the proposal is appropriately designed and sited to avoid an adverse impact of the type referred to in s 2.10(1).
The site is also mapped as being within the coastal use area pursuant to s 2.11 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP. Again from the parties’ submissions, the Coastal Engineering Advice and the information contained in the SEE, I accept that the matters listed in s 2.11(1) have been considered, and that as required by s 2.11(2) the proposal is designed and sited to avoid an adverse impact of the type referred to in s 2.11(1).
Pursuant to s 5 of the Coastal Management Act 2016, the site is located within the coastal zone. For the reasons given in the SEE and the Coastal Engineering Advice, I accept that the proposed development is not likely to increase the risk of coastal hazards on the subject site or any other land, as required by s 2.12 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.
The Gosford Beaches Coastal Zone Management Plan is a certified coastal management plan and applies to the site. This plan allows for piled beachfront development to be constructed on Wamberal Beach to manage the risk to public safety and built assets. The proposed development is piled, consistent with this plan, and is therefore consistent with the requirements of s 2.13 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.
Section 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP requires the consent authority to consider whether the site is contaminated, and if so, whether it is or will be made suitable for the intended use. The parties submit, and I accept, that there is no known contamination on the site nor any history of contaminating activities and that, subject to the agreed conditions of consent, the site is suitable for the intended, continued residential use.
Pursuant to s 27 of the EPA Regulation, a BASIX certificate that relates to the development as amended, accompanies the application. Compliance with this certificate is required under the agreed conditions of consent.