© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2010] NSWLEC 1154
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2010-10-11
Rouse Hill P
Original judgment source is linked above.
CITATION : Moran Australia (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 1154
APPLICANT Moran Australia (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT The Hills Shire Council
KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Adequacy of residential care facility; interim access and drainage arrangements in release area development; piece-meal development; S94 contribution for transport facilities.
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 State Environmental Planning Policy - (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 LEGISLATION CITED: State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land North Kellyville Development Control Plan Baulkham Hills Development Control Plan Section 94 Contributions Plan No 13 - North Kellyville Precinct
APPLICANT Ms L Byrne (Barrister) SOLICITOR Paul A Curtis & Co LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
RESPONDENT Mr C Winn SOLICITOR The Hills Shire Council
THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Appeal No 10344 of 2010 Moran Australia (Rouse Hill P/L v The Hills Shire Council
JUDGMENT Background. 1 This appeal was lodged against council's refusal of a development application for a seniors living type development comprising a 150 bed residential care facility at 71-83 Samantha Riley Drive, Kellyville. 2 The proceedings commenced by way of a s34 Conference, which was terminated and the parties consented to Hussey C determining the matter. As a consequence of discussions between the parties it was agreed that the proposed building form and associated environmental impacts were satisfactory subject to resolution of the following outstanding issues summarised as follows: - Access; whether the proposed "temporary" access arrangements are satisfactory. - Section 94 contributions, particularly in respect of transport services. - Drainage arrangements, including the adequacy of detailing and acceptability of the "interim" drainage proposal.
The site 3 The site is described as Lot 4 in DP 32271. It is of a slightly irregular shape, having a northern (rear) boundary of 144.55m, an eastern (side) boundary of 183.175m, a southern frontage to Samantha Riley Drive of 97.52m and a combined western boundary of 186.78m. It has a total area of 20,237 sq m.
4 There is a single storey cottage of brick and tile roof construction is located in the south-western corner of the site, adjacent to Samantha Riley Drive. This dwelling is currently vacant and is set back approximately 10m from the front site boundary. 5 There is depression in the land towards the northern boundary, which feeds into a small dam is located to the north-western corner of the property. This watercourse then discharges into the rear part of the downstream property No 57-69 SR Drive. Several small, dilapidated sheds are located to the rear of the dwelling, within a loosely fenced paddock area.
6 Vehicular access is currently gained from Samantha Riley Drive. The Locality 7 The site is located in the suburb of Kellyville approximately 2km north of Kellyville Plaza shopping centre and approximately 2.5 km east of the Rouse Hill Regional Centre. The locality has been identified for future urban development as part of the North West Growth Sector
8 Development in the surrounding locality comprises a mixture of low density residential and rural development, including local and regional open space. 9 To the north is a rural zoned parcel of land having a frontage to Foxall Road. This parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes. Further north of the site, development comprises a variety of rural residential land uses, including market gardens, small vineyards and the like. To the east of the site, is a rural residential allotment known as Nos. 57-69 Samantha Riley Drive. This property contains a single dwelling, fronting Samantha Riley Drive, with paddocks to the north and east along the property's secondary frontage to Foxall Road. Development consent was granted for an 80 - unit retirement village on this property. However that consent has lapsed.
10 Further east of the site is Foxall Road and beyond are rural residential allotments extending to Cattai Creek. To the south, on the opposite side of Samantha Riley Drive is the residential suburb of Kellyville, which is primarily zoned Residential 2(b), comprising a mix of 1 and 2 - storey residential dwelling houses. This residential area is interspersed with local open space, drainage corridors and some special uses such as schools.
The proposal 11 The proposal is described as comprising 2 connected buildings, being part 2 and 3 storeys in height, with one level of basement parking below. The proposed development provides a total of 150 beds, with 49 low care beds, 81 high care beds and 20 dementia care beds. An existing dwelling house on the site is proposed to be retained for ancillary purposes. 12 A maximum of 40 staff will be employed at anyone time (usually occurring in the morning shift between 7.00am - 3.00pm). The proposed development will be a 24 hour facility with general management and administration hours of 8.00am - 5.30pm. There will be no set visitor hours although the peak hours are expected to be between 5.30pm - 8.00pm. 13 The proposed facility will operate private bus services providing a transport service to and from the centre for client activities and for recreational outings for residents and for day care centre clients. The bus is likely to be a 25 - seat vehicle and bus parking is provided adjacent to the delivery area. 14 Temporary vehicle access/egress is proposed from Samantha Riley Drive with permanent access/egress to be from a future local street (FLS) at the rear of the property, to be constructed in conjunction with adjoining development, as shown in the DCP. In the absence of this new road to provide access and trunk drainage, the applicant proposes to construct an interim drainage control system comprising an OSD system, which maintains discharges into the existing watercourse. 15 A total landscaped area of 11,352 sq m with distinct landscaped zones for entry plantings, boundary plantings, internal courtyards and dementia gardens is proposed. Planning controls 16 The site is subject to a number of controls including: - State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 - Amendment No. 3; under which the land is in the R2 Low Density Residential and SP2 Infrastructure zone and the development is permissible with consent. - State Environmental Planning Policy - (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. - State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land. - North Kellyville DCP. - Baulkham Hills DCP (BHDCP) - Section 94 Contributions Plan No 13 - North Kellyville Precinct The evidence 17 Detailed evidence was presented by: - Mr F Rayner; Council's principal forward planner. - Mr A King; Council's manager infrastructure planning. - Ms V Sivakumar; Council's senior subdivision engineer. - Mr K Mackay; Applicant's consulting planner. - Mr A Morse; Applicant's traffic planning consultant. - Mr B Lysenko; Applicant's drainage consultant. 18 As noted, the subject land is non - urban land designated for future urban development within the North West Growth Sector. Much of the surrounding land comprises smaller holdings in the order of 2 - 5ha and the future urban development is to be in accordance with the DCP "road layouts". However, it appears that many of these holdings are in individual ownerships, which imposes considerable difficulties in achieving both access agreements and the timely provision of services so as to facilitate the orderly development the land. 19 This situation occurs in the subject application because direct access to the frontage road (Samantha Riley Drive) is to be denied after it is constructed as a 4-lane Sub-Arterial Road. This construction is dependent on funding raised from s 94 contributions for (land and capital) transport facilities. Ultimately, access to the subject land will be via new internal roads, as shown on Attachment AA. However at this stage, there is no coordination of adjoining property owners to achieve a continuous section of the new future local street (FLS) to connect to an existing public road. 20 Apart causing difficulties with satisfactory road access, the 'piece - meal' ownership also restricts the coordinated construction of future drainage infrastructure, particularly as the drainage is usually constructed within the new road reserve alignments. 21 Accordingly, one of the stated purposes the NKDCP is to: 2 Consolidate and simplify the planning controls to ensure the orderly, efficient and environmentally sensitive development of the North Kellyville Precinct as envisaged by the North West Sector structure Plan and refined by the North Kellyville Indicative Layout Plan. However no specific references are made to the preferred implementation process for achieving the orderly development. Road access 22 In the absence of the future DCP road connections the applicant proposes an interim measure involving maintaining temporary access from Samantha Riley Drive as the main access. Secondly, it is proposed to condition the subject development to require the construction of the new internal road when approval has been granted to the adjoining land - No 57-69 SR Drive. The conditions include an agreed bonding amount estimated at 150% of the construction costs. 23 The temporary access arrangement was assessed by the traffic experts. Mr King acknowledged the practical difficulties in constructing the rear street but expressed concerns about safety risks in terms of the available safe sight distances for the temporary access onto Samantha Riley Drive. This situation exists because of an existing crest in Samantha Riley Drive, about 110m to the west of the proposed driveway entry. 24 Mr Morse assessed the sight distance concerns by reference to the provisions of AS 2890.1 for driveway design. He says that for compliance with the existing 60km/h speed limit a safe intersection stopping distance (SISD) of 83m is required. For a higher of 70km/h a SISD of 97m would be required. As the proposal can achieve an actual sight distance of 95m, he considers the safety risk acceptable. 25 Against this, Mr King preferred a more cautious approach, which involved an assessment in terms of the Ausroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice. Application of these provisions would require a SISD of 113m for an intersection and as the proposal cannot achieve this, he considered it unsatisfactory. But he conceded the proposed temporary access-way would be classified as a driveway, not an intersection and therefore the applications compliance with the AS 2890.1 provisions was reasonable. 26 In further support of this proposal, the applicant is to implement traffic controls to restrict entry/exit movements to Left In & Left Out only and provide some pavement widening at the driveway connection point, together with the construction of a median strip to prevent unauthorised Right turns. 27 Consequently, I am satisfied to rely on Mr Morse's opinion the proposed driveway alignment, together with the additional construction works then represents a reasonable safety risk for temporary access to the development. Insofar as the actual 85th percentile speed is 70km/h, it seems that the community interest would be well served by better enforcement of the speed limits until the upgraded arterial road is constructed to safely accommodate the significant increase in traffic volumes. Section 94 contributions 28 Draft conditions were provided, which include a number of s94 contributions for infrastructure. Whilst accepting most of the contributions, the applicant challenged those for Transport Facilities (Land & Capital components). Of some interest, the s94 Plan includes $11,089,466.59 for the construction of Samantha Riley Drive, together with other associated transport and traffic works totalling $54, 727,747. However there is no firm implementation plan. 29 The planners agreed that the proposed development is categorised as a "residential care facility" as defined by SEPP Seniors and subsequently addressed the designated facilities having a relevant nexus. 30 With regard of the contentious s94 component for the transport facilities , Mr Mackay says that as the development is a 'high-care' facility, the residents will not drive and on-site resident parking is not provided. Therefore no nexus exists in respect of these persons with diminished mobility for traffic facilities. Insofar as there will be some traffic demand by staff, service vehicles and visitors, the amount of contributions should be proportionally discounted. 31 The S94CP adopts 1.3 persons/room as the "assumed average occupancy rates", which is subject to future monitoring. Accordingly, the s94CP derives a contribution rate/person. However, as the future "high - care" residents will be unable to drive, Mr Mackay says the rate for any contribution should alternatively be discounted and based on the traffic generation demands from the development. 32 He refers to the RTA publication Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Version 2.2, which states that traffic generated per single dwelling is 9 DVTs. Therefore, based on the occupancy rates in the CP (3.4 persons/dwelling), this equates to 2.65 DVTs/person. By comparison with dwelling houses, he says that even if the upper end of the RTA guide rate was accepted on a per bed basis, the resultant traffic generation would be 2 DVTs per bed, less than a person in a single dwelling house. 33 Consequently, he considers it appropriate to apply a contribution rate of $1165.27 per DVT rather than the CP rate of $4103.00 per person.
34 However, the planners agree that due to the nature of this development, it is appropriate to adopt a reduced occupancy rate of 1 person/bed. I accept this concession is reasonable. 35 Comparison of the 2 approaches (including credits) then results in: Facilities S94 Contrib. Plan @ 1person per/bed Alternate Traffic facilities method Transport - Land $71,235.20 $39, 745.56 Transport - Capital $530,307.46 $295, 884.56 $601,542.66 $335,630.12
36 Having considered the alternative approaches, I note Mr Rayner's following objections to the alternative approach. He says that the s94CP is premised on striking a common rate/person and multiplying that rate by the assumed occupancy for a particular type of development. The methodology for calculating the contribution rate is based on the discounted cash flow model that strikes a rate on the basis that present value of costs will equal present value of revenue. Revenue is estimated in the form of persons which forms the common unit of the contribution plan 37 In summary then, it appears that the s94CP methodology comprehensively considered options to achieve a desired servicing outcome. Whilst I accept there could be several alternatives, nevertheless, I do not consider the applicant's alternative compelling so as to significantly amend a key approach/component of the s94CP. 38 It seems to me that the reduction in the contribution rate to 1person/bed is reasonable in the circumstances. In this regard I note that the CP estimates requires regular monitoring and it could be that this development does attract significant traffic in terms of visitors and service vehicles. Therefore the adjusted council s94 contributions should apply.
Drainage 39 The drainage issue concerns the likely impacts arising from the applicant's interim proposal to alter of the existing flow regime in the non-urban context, in order for the development to proceed in advance of the ultimate drainage system. This interim solution comprises: - earthworks involving benching of the site to provide building platforms, - filling of the existing watercourse/dam and its re-alignment to the north, adjacent to the FLS, - the construction of gabion-type weir to intercept and mitigate the discharge rate into the existing downstream watercourse. - the construction of a perimeter road adjacent to the eastern boundary under which an OSD system is to be partially constructed that also discharges into the proposed weir. 40 Accordingly, Mr Lysenko has undertaken a preliminary assessment of the runoff from this catchment area and says that it is relatively small and that the OSD system can be readily designed to ensure that in the interim period, the post development discharge will not exceed the pre - development discharge. Subsequently, when it is practical to construct the new FLS in conjunction with the adjoining downstream property, the aforementioned discharges can be diverted into the road reticulation, thereby eliminating overland via the watercourse. 41 Ms Sivakumar addressed the current engineering controls including the following provisions of the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP): - street network to be based on road hierarchy and to provide interconnected streets that give safe, convenient and clear access within and beyond the Precinct. - selected roads to incorporate swales, WSUD infrastructure as part of Integrated Stormwater Management - riparian corridors, which are to protect, restore and enhance the environmental values and functions of watercourses and riparian corridors. 42 Consequently, she says that the installation of OSD systems are now redundant within the current Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) catchment management strategy, which incorporate conventional drainage systems to convey the stormwater runoff from developments to designated regional basins, which are part of the trunk drainage system that mitigates any flooding. 43 Ms Sivakumar does not consider the proposal complies with the WSUD or other DCP provisions and identifies the following 3 options: - Option 1 (Do nothing); No development to be without public road access, whereby the existing condition of the locality is maintained so as not to heighten the social and financial liability of council. As the proposal does not satisfy this, she consider it should be refused. - Option 2; (No change) This is to allow the proposal, which she considers unreasonable because it does not initially comply with the ultimate drainage strategy. - Option 3 (Compliance with NKP outcomes); This would require the regrading of the land so as the enable construction of temporary drainage structures along the FLS. Where extended earthworks are involved along the downstream common boundary, then agreement for filling and easements should be required. 44 From her assessment of the compliance requirements in the NKPDCP, she does not consider the proposal incorporating the OSD is satisfactory. 45 Insofar as there is a comprehensive set of controls in the NKPDCP to achieve the desired environmental outcome, it is apparent to me from the evidence that there is no coordinated infrastructure-staging plan for the construction of the new internal local roads and drainage systems. This causes considerable inconvenience when neighbouring property owners do not wish to develop concurrently. 46 This is the situation in the current matter where the Moran development wishes to proceed with its '150 bed total-care' development but the adjoining and lower level lot (No 57-69 SR Drive) has no current approval. Therefore no final neighbourhood arrangements have been possible to achieve the construction of the new internal FSL, which will incorporate the ultimate drainage system. 47 In these circumstances, I think it is reasonable to consider the individual site location and associated constraints, to determine whether developments can proceed on an interim 'piece-meal' basis. Otherwise the owners of strategically located land designated for access and drainage disposal could thwart orderly development if they are not prepared to negotiate reasonable access and servicing arrangements. 48 In an overall consideration, it appears to me that there are community benefits by allowing this development to proceed providing the environmental impacts can be adequately addressed. In considering the interim drainage solution, I note the provisions of Section 6 - Managing the Environment of the NKPDCP, wherein section 6.1 includes the following objectives for integrated stormwater management: 1 To ensure that appropriate stormwater management measures are implemented to maximise opportunities maintain and enhance the quality and integrity of urban waterways through both the construction and occupation phases of development, while encouraging and creating an urban form where risks to life and property, as a result of either minor or major flooding are minimised, 2 To maximise opportunities for a best practice Water Sensitive Urban Design Approach at the individual lot, overall development and regional scales,.. 6 To minimise the impact of nuisance flooding to a level to the community; and… 49 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the interim drainage solution by the applicant reasonably satisfies these objectives. The watercourse diversion to the gabion-type weir and OSD system should effectively control any water quality and increased rate of runoff concerns from the new development, so that the post-development discharges do not exceed the pre-development discharges. 50 Taking into account the nature of the downstream discharge via the OSD and gabion weir structure, it will be mostly in line with the existing discharge point, which is along an apparent natural watercourse through an undeveloped rural property. It seems to me that this individual lot, "interim drainage" proposal will minimise the impact of nuisance flooding and any flooding risk to persons or property. 51 In this regard, I have also given consideration to the applicant's agreement to conditions, which trigger the construction of the FLS, so that the interim drainage system can then be connected into the ultimate road drainage system. I rely on the levels Mr Lysenko submitted that this can be achieved. Conclusions 52 Having considered the evidence, the submissions and undertaken a view, I consider this application merits conditional consent. The development is located within the North Kellyville release area, which has been subject to extensive environmental investigation resulting in comprehensive planning controls to allow large-scale residential and associated development. 53 The subject development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential and SP2 Infrastructure zone. In support of the application the applicant has submitted various government papers supporting the short - term need for aged-care facilities in this area. Accordingly, I accept the applicant's submissions that there are community benefits in achieving the development of this type of facility. 54 However implementation of this allowable development is compromised because it is the 1st development in this sub-catchment area where the ultimate road and drainage infrastructure is not available. But this depends on some development actually commencing so that s94 funds can be progressively obtained. This might mean that some compromised amenity is necessary in the short term. 55 Unfortunately the controls do not provide any guidelines for the 'piece-meal' implementation of development. Therefore considering the public interest benefits of progressing the development, it seems reasonable to consider whether appropriate interim servicing measures can be undertaken, which facilitate the development without adverse environmental outcomes and which enable the development to ultimately comply with servicing controls. 56 With respect to the temporary road access, I accept the expert's opinion that temporary access onto Samantha Riley Drive can be maintained providing additional safety works are undertaken at the driveway/road connection. Also, that conditions can be imposed that effectively trigger the new rear road access (FLS) in conjunction with the adjoining development. 57 The associated servicing issue concerns the drainage issue. In this case the upstream non-urban catchment is relatively small. Therefore I am satisfied to rely on Mr Lysenko's evidence that the OSD and watercourse works can effectively restrict post-discharges from the site to not exceed pre-development conditions. Whilst it then discharges into the existing watercourse, there was no evidence to indicate that there would any significant risk to person or property. Importantly, I understand that the proposed drainage system can be connected to the ultimate drainage scheme within the FLS, when it is constructed in conjunction with neighbouring developments. 58 The remaining issue concerns payment of reasonable s94 contributions towards transport infrastructure. For the aforementioned reasons, I consider it reasonable to maintain the s94CP methodology but reduce the occupancy factor, as agreed by Mr Kendal, to ascertain the appropriate contributions. 59 Consequently the issues before the Court have been addressed to enable the conditional consent to be granted. However the draft conditions include a deferred commencement condition requiring a drainage easement to be obtained from the downstream property owner. In the circumstances of the temporary drainage works, which maintain very similar discharge characteristics to the existing and noting that the adjoining rural property is subject to development, I do not consider the condition reasonable. Likewise, I do not consider conditions to construct part of Samantha Riley Drive reasonable when the s94 contributions apply. Court orders 60 The Court orders that: 1 The appeal is upheld. 2 Development consent is granted to DA 1902/2008/HB for the construction and operation of a 150 bed residential care facility at 57 Samantha Riley Drive Kellyville subject to the conditions in Annexure A. 3 The exhibits may be returned except for 1, 2, A, C, K and L. R Hussey Commissioner of the Court
Annexure "A" Condition of Consent for 150 Bed Residential Care Facility 57 Samantha Riley Drive, Kellyville. GENERAL MATTERS
No work (including excavation, land fill or earth reshaping) shall be undertaken prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, where a Construction Certificate is required. 2. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 The development shall be restricted to the housing of older people and/or people with a disability in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability)2004. 3. Accessibility and Adaptability The Access Report prepared by Mark Relf of Accessibility Solutions (NSW) P/L dated 20th December 2009 must be adhered to at all stages. The development is to be designed according to the report.
ii. Partial Width Road Construction - DCP "Park Street" Road Type The partial width construction of the "park street" road along the full length of the western boundary of the development site (Lot 4 DP 32271) as identified in the North Kellyville DCP referenced above. The partial width construction must include all stormwater drainage, concrete footpaths, grassed swales, cycleways, servicing and other ancillary work as identified in the above documents and in order to make the construction effective. The proposed road must be constructed to the following requirements: Road Name: Formation: Traffic Loading: (Footpath (w/ Cycleway)/ Carriageway/ Partial Grassed Swale) (m) N(ESA) Road Type: Proposed Road 2 DCP "Park Street" Road Type (Partial) 5*10(5) (Sites Western Boundary) 4.5m/ 5.3m/ 2m (partial swale) (11.8m total width)
iii. Street Names Signs Street name signs and posts for the new roads as approved by Council. iv. Heavy Duty Crossings The temporary site access from Samantha Riley Drive must be closed and replaced with a new heavy duty gutter and footpath crossing and driveway from the "local street" covered by sub-point (i) above. The driveway must be a minimum of 6m wide at the boundary splayed to a minimum of 8m wide at the kerb. v. Inter-allotment Stormwater Drainage To provide an access point for the upstream undeveloped property to maintain flow through the existing depression.
BOND PROCESS/ REQUIREMENTS: The items covered under points (i) to (v) above are able to be bonded. In this respect a bond for 150% of the calculated costs of these works is required to be provided prior to the issuing of any (including an interim) Occupation Certificate for the subject development. The calculated bond amount must be based on an accepted method of cost estimation and is subject to the agreement of Council's Manager - Subdivision and Development Certification. The applicant is also required to create a Positive Covenant on the title of the property requiring the eventual completion of these works as outlined later in this consent. Upon notice in writing from the Council the applicant will be required to submit to Council for approval an engineering design for these works no later than three (3) months of the date of the notice. An Engineering Construction Certificate is required in accordance with the requirements of Condition 32 from this consent. The works must be completed within six (6) months from the date of which Council issues an Engineering Construction Certificate for the works. The written notice referred to above will come as a result of Council receiving an Engineering Construction Certificate for the construction of the adjacent proposed road network as part of any development on the adjoining development sites: a) Lot 3 DP 32271 to the east of the subject site. b) Lot 2 DP 32271 to the north of the subject site. c) Lot 5 DP 32271 to the west of the subject site. d) Lot C DP 391357 to the west of the subject site. With the exception of point (v) above which is triggered by an approved development on Lot 5 DP 32271 to the west of the subject site only. The engineering design for these roads must be accompanied by a separate road widening plan identifying the areas that will be required to be dedicated as road widening as required later in this consent. This dedication must occur at no cost to Council.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE 33. Section 94 Contribution - North Kellyville The following monetary contributions must be paid to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to provide for the increased demand for public amenities and services resulting from the development. Payments comprise of the following:- Seniors Living
Prior to payment of the above contributions, the applicant is advised to contact Council's Development Contributions Officer on 9843 0268. Payment must be made by cheque or credit/debit card. Cash payments will not be accepted. This condition has been imposed in accordance with Contributions Plan No. 13. Council's Contributions Plans can be viewed at www.thehills.nsw.gov.au or a copy may be inspected or purchased at Council's Administration Centre. NOTE: Contributions Plan No. 13 includes provision for payment of the above contributions by monetary contribution, material public benefit (works-in-kind) or by dedication of land. Council may consider an offset against the above monetary contributions where the applicant proposes to undertake works-in-kind or dedication of land envisaged by the contributions plan. Any such proposal is subject to the agreement of Council and the applicant will be required to enter into a Deed or Agreement for any such works and/or dedications.
Part 1 - Design installation and commissioning Part 2 - Operation and maintenance Part 3 - Performance based maintenance of cooling water systems.
An application to register any regulated system installed must be made to Council prior to commissioning.
THE USE OF THE SITE 79. Operating and Staffing of the 150 Beds Facility Approval is granted for the operating and staffing of the facility in accordance with the details under the submitted "Operational Management Statement". Any alteration to the above will require further approval of Council.
R Hussey Commissioner of the Court ajl
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Moran Australia (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd
The Hills Shire Council