//
[2026] NSWLEC 1088
General information, not legal advice.
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2026-04-15
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: MSV Pinnacle Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1088
Hearing dates: Conciliation conferences held on 4 July, 19 August, 9 December 2025 and 20 March 2026
Date of orders: 15 April 2026
Decision date: 15 April 2026
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Kullen AC
Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the amount of $15,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) Development consent is granted to development application No eDA0587/24 as amended, for demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation, construction of 22 independent living units, basement parking, landscaping, removal of trees and associated works pursuant to Pt 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 at 3 and 5 Lofberg Road, West Pymble, NSW, 2073, legally described as Lot A in DP 395187 and Lot B in DP 395187, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — residential flat development — affordable housing — orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.47, 8.7, 8.11
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 27, 38
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4
Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan (2006 EPI 155a)
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Chs 2, 6, Pt 6.2, Div 2, ss 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing), Ch 3, Pt 5, Sch 8, ss 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 93, 95, 97, 108
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022
Texts Cited: Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2025
Department of Planning and Environment, Seniors Housing Design Guide (November 2023)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: MSV Pinnacle Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
D Tyrrell (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Rose (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Tyrrells Planning Law (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/106769
Publication restriction: Nil
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to ss 8.7 and 8.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by Ku-ring-gai Council of development application No. eDA0587/24 (the DA) for the demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation, construction of 22 independent living units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works pursuant to Pt 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) at the properties known as 3 and 5 Lofberg Road, West Pymble, legally described as Lot A in DP 395187 and Lot B in DP 395187 (the site).
The DA seeks consent for the following:
Demolition of existing structures and driveways within 3 and 5 Lofberg Road, West Pymble, including the existing concrete stormwater culvert;
Tree removal within 3 and 5 Lofberg Road, West Pymble and the removal of one mature street tree to accommodate a new driveway crossover;
Construction of seniors housing consisting of 22 independent living units as in-fill selfcare housing with basement car parking, landscaping, and associated works and 40 resident car spaces, with associated works including landscaping and waste storage area;
Construction of stormwater and drainage works; and
Consolidation of the site into a single allotment.
The DA was lodged on 13 January 2025. The Applicant lodged a Class 1 Application with the Court on 19 March 2025. The Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) was filed with the Court on 23 April 2025.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 4 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference, which commenced with an on-site view. A number of submitters attended the on-site view, and two submitters made verbal submissions to the Court.
The s 34 conciliation conference was adjourned to 19 August 2025 to allow time for amended plans to be prepared by the Applicant and assessed by the Respondent, and subsequently further adjourned to 9 December 2025, to allow the parties time to consider and review the revised plans and to finalise the s 34 agreement and conditions of consent based on an amended development application (the amended DA).
After the conciliation conferences, the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties.
The parties advise that the Applicant provided to the Respondent amended plans and material that include a number of changes in the amended DA to address:
Introduction of a ‘riparian corridor’ along the eastern boundary, 11.5 m wide;
Residential flat building at the rear of the site with a basement carpark, with no villas or townhouses proposed at the rear;
Three villas proposed at the front part of the site;
19 apartments and 3 villas now proposed in total;
Increased side setbacks to all boundaries;
Additional planting proposed in the increased side setbacks;
Supporting plans and reports updated to reflect the amended proposal; and
Amendments made to the proposed footpath to the bus stop on Ryde Road to ensure compliant access provided.
A signed s 34 agreement with Annexure A was filed with the Court on 16 December 2025. The s 34 agreement is supported by an agreed statement of jurisdictional prerequisites. The amended plans were filed with the Court on 12 December 2025. An amended s 34 agreement was provided to the Court on 19 February 2026. Following a final s 34 conciliation conference on 20 March 2026, a further amended s 34 agreement with Annexure A was filed with the Court on 9 April 2026 to include condition 52 in the conditions of consent relating to the requirements of Water NSW.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the amended DA.
There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance have been satisfied in a written submission accompanying the s 34 agreement, and those requirements have been satisfied as follows.
The DA was notified in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan for a period of 30 days commencing on 20 January 2025. 6 submissions were received in response to the notification of the DA.
The parties advise that the matters raised by the objectors in relation to the DA have been taken into account in the preparation of the amended plans.
The proposal includes controlled activities in the nature of the erection of buildings and the carrying out of works within waterfront land, as defined under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) (Water Act). The DA had not been nominated as integrated development under s 4.47 of the EPA Act, however the parties acknowledge that appropriate approvals under the Water Act will be required and obtained prior to commencement of works. The parties agree that the jurisdictional prerequisites are satisfied subject to obtaining the necessary approvals under the Water Act.
The parties advise that they have agreed on the insertion of condition 52 in the conditions of consent to ensure that the requirements of WaterNSW are met, and that the Court would be satisfied that these conditions meet the requirements of the Water Act.
Chapter 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) aims to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.
The amended DA includes the removal of trees on the site and the removal of one mature street tree to accommodate a new driveway crossover.
The parties advise that they agree the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the Biodiversity SEPP having regard to the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan Revision 5 prepared by Tree Survey Pty Ltd submitted in support of the amended DA.
Chapter 6 of the Biodiversity SEPP relates to water catchments and applies to the site. The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment under the Biodiversity SEPP and is therefore land in a Regulated Catchment for the purposes of Pt 6.2, Div 2 of the Biodiversity SEPP, which sets out the relevant considerations for a consent authority in deciding to grant development consent to development on land in a regulated catchment.
Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters in s 6.6(2) (relating to water quality and quantity), s 6.7(2) (relating to aquatic ecology) and s 6.9(2) (relating to recreation and public access) in the Biodiversity SEPP.
The parties advise that the further amended DA is accompanied by a letter prepared by Hydracor Consulting Engineers dated 17 February 2026 addressing compliance of the proposed development with each of these requirements of the Biodiversity SEPP, as follows:
In response to 6.5 (2)(b) the subject site is not impacted by a natural watercourse, a riparian corridor or lies within flood prone land;
In response to s 6.5(2)(c), the Stormwater Plans prepared by HYDRACORE Consulting Engineers, dated 3 October 2025 for the proposed development (the Stormwater Plans):
(a) Include measures which treat and control stormwater run-off to meet the prescriptive water quality, streamflow and volumetric run-requirements outlined in the DCP; and (b) Demonstrates an outcome can be achieved which will minimise any adverse impacts of urban stormwater on the land on which development is to be carried out, adjoining properties, native bushland, waterways and groundwater systems.
Pursuant to s 79 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) housing for seniors and people with a disability is permitted on land zoned for urban purposes (including Zone R2 Low Density Residential).
The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP), and the proposal is therefore considered to be permissible upon this site with consent pursuant to s 81 of the Housing SEPP.
The parties advise that the site is located within 200 m of bus stops located upon Ryde Road to the south of the site and identified as Stop ID: 207362 & Stop ID: 207357. Bus Route 197 and 575 operates seven days a week including public holidays. The bus services provide access to a range of facilities, services and railways stations.
The proposed development is for the purpose of ‘in-fill self-care housing’ which is defined at s 82 of the Housing SEPP as:
means seniors housing consisting of at least 2 independent living units and at which none of the following services are provided on the site—
(a) meals,
(b) cleaning services,
(c) personal care,
(d) nursing care.
Further, ‘independent living unit’ is defined in the Dictionary of the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan (2006 EPI 155a) as:
means a dwelling or part of a building, whether or not attached to another dwelling—
(a) used to house seniors or people with a disability, and
(b) containing private facilities for cooking, sleeping and bathing, and
(c) where clothes washing facilities or other facilities for use in connection with the dwelling or part of a building may be provided on a shared basis, but does not include a hostel.
The proposal seeks approval to construct twenty-two (22) independent living units as in-fill self-care housing which the parties advise is consistent with this definition. Development standards, site-related requirements, and design requirements for seniors housing are contained in Pt 5 of Ch 3 of the Housing SEPP. Compliance by the amended DA with the provisions of the Housing SEPP are as submitted by the parties below:
Minimum Lot Size – Pursuant to s 84(2)(a) of the Housing SEPP, the site is subject to a minimum lot size of 1,000 m2. The proposal has a lot size of 6,335.2 m2 and complies with this requirement;
Site Frontage – Pursuant to s 84(2)(b) of the Housing SEPP, the site is subject to a minimum site frontage of 20 m measured to the building line. The proposal has a minimum site frontage or more than 20 m measured to the building line which complies with this requirement;
Height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted – In relation to s 84(2)(c) of the Housing SEPP, a height of not more than 9.5 m excluding servicing equipment on the roof of the building, and if the roof of the building contains servicing equipment resulting in the building having a height of more than 9.5 m—the servicing equipment complies with s 84(2)(c) of the Housing SEPP, and if the development results in a building with more than 2 storeys—the additional storeys are set back within planes that project at an angle of 45 degrees inwards. The parties advise that the proposed development results in a built form having a maximum height of not more than 9.5 m and does not result in any additional storey which encroaches a 45 degree plane projecting inwards from side and rear boundaries;
Development Standards for Independent Living Units – Pursuant to s 85 of the Housing SEPP, a consent authority must not consent to a development application for an independent living unit unless the development complies with the relevant standards specified in Schedule 4 – Standards concerning accessibility and usability for hostels and independent living units. A detailed assessment of the proposed development against these requirements has been provided in support of the DA. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of s 85 of the Housing SEPP;
Location and access to facilities and services - Under s 93(1) of the Housing SEPP, development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of an independent living unit unless the consent authority has considered whether residents of the proposed development will have adequate access. The DA has identified access routes for this development which is Bus Route 197 and 575. The gradients and pathways of the routes accessing the bus stops comply with the requirements of s 93(1) of the Housing SEPP;
Water & Sewer – In relation to s 95 of the Housing SEPP, a reticulated water system and sewage system is available for the proposed development as demonstrated by the provision of water and sewerage services to the existing dwellings. There is sufficient capacity in the existing system to cater for the proposed development;
Design requirements for seniors housing – Pursuant to s 97 of the Housing SEPP, the consent authority must take into consideration the provisions of the Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023. In response to this requirement, the parties advise that the proposal has been designed having regard to these Guidelines and it is considered that the proposal achieves an appropriate level of compliance with its requirements and is of a good design. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of s 97 of the Housing SEPP;
Design principles for seniors housing – Sch 8 of the Housing SEPP contains design principles for seniors housing. Pursuant to s 97(2) of the Housing SEPP, development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of seniors housing unless the consent authority is satisfied the design of the seniors housing demonstrates that adequate consideration has been given to the design principles for seniors housing set out in Sch 8 of the Housing SEPP. The parties advise that the Design Verification Statement has been prepared by Gelder Group Architects which addresses and satisfies this requirement under the Housing SEPP.
Building Height – Pursuant to s 108(2)(a) of the Housing SEPP, buildings are not to exceed 9.5 m in height, excluding servicing equipment on the roof of a building. The proposal has a maximum height of less than 9.5 m which complies with this requirement;
Floor Space Ratio – In relation to s 108(2)(c) of the Housing SEPP, the FSR is not to exceed 0.5:1. The proposal has an FSR of 0.5:1 which complies with this requirement;
Landscaped Area – In relation to s 108(2)(d) of the Housing SEPP, there is a minimum landscaped area that is lesser of 35 m2 or 30% of the site area. The proposal has a minimum landscaped area of 3,505.48 m2 or 55.4% of the site area which complies with this requirement;
Deep Soil Zones – Pursuant to s 108(2)(f) of the Housing SEPP, 15% of the site area, with a minimum dimension of 3 m, at least 65% of deep soil zone is to be located to the rear. The total deep soil area of the site is 3,092.58 m2 or 48.9% with 840.56 m2 or 88.5% of deep soil zone located to the rear. The proposal therefore complies with this requirement;
Solar Access – With regards to s 108(2)(g) of the Housing SEPP, at least 70% of the dwellings of the development must receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter in living rooms and private open spaces. The proposal has 100% of dwellings receiving compliant solar access to external living areas and 100% of the dwellings receiving compliance solar access to internal living areas;
Private Open Space for ground floor dwellings – Pursuant to s 108(2)(h) of the Housing SEPP, for a dwelling in a single storey building or a dwelling located, wholly or in part, on the ground floor of a multi-storey building, at least 15 m² of private open space per dwelling at ground floor and at least 1 private open space with minimum dimensions of 3 m accessible from a living area is required. Each unit located on the ground floor and villas 6 to 12 provide for a terrace with an area in excess of the minimum requirements. The proposed development therefore complies with this requirement;
Private Open Space for upper floor dwellings – Pursuant to s 108(2)(i) of the Housing SEPP, for a dwelling in a multi-storey building not located on the ground floor, a balcony accessible from a living area with minimum dimensions of 2 m and an area of at least 10 m2 or for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom—an area of at least 6 m2 is required. Each unit not located on the ground flood provides for a terrace with an area in excess of the minimum requirements. The proposed development therefore complies with this requirement; and
Parking – Pursuant to s 108(2)(k) of the Housing SEPP, 0.5 parking spaces are required per bedroom. The proposal provides for 40 car parking spaces. The proposal is therefore compliant with this requirement.
The Court considers that the amended DA meets the requirements of Pt 5 of Ch 3 of the Housing SEPP.
Section 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience SEPP) requires that a consent authority must not grant consent to any development on the land unless it has considered whether a site is contaminated or potentially contaminated land, and if it is, that it is satisfied that the land is suitable (or will be suitable after undergoing remediation) for the proposed use.
The parties advise that:
The findings of a detailed site investigation indicated a number of areas of potential environmental concern including potential importation of uncontrolled fill, pesticides use, agricultural activities, chicken coops, onsite migration from adjoining former agricultural activities, leaks from vehicles, metal degradation, concrete drainage channel, and asbestos based building materials;
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been prepared by GSNE Services Pty Ltd dated 5 December 2025 to address the concerns raised in the detailed site investigation and manage the identified contamination; and
The RAP finds that “the site will be considered to be rendered suitable subject to the implementation of remediation and validation works in accordance with this RAP”.
In relation to s 4.6 of the Resilience SEPP, the parties submit that the Court can be satisfied that consideration of this matter can result in consent being granted.
The Court is satisfied for the purposes of s 4.6 of the Resilience SEPP that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable Buildings SEPP) applies to the proposed development. Section 27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation) provides that a BASIX certificate must be issued for the proposed development. The proposed development is BASIX development, as defined in the Dictionary of the EPA Regulation.
The parties advise that:
A BASIX certificate 1774964M_04 issued on 24 October 2025 was prepared by Building Sustainability Assessments for the purpose of the plans accompanying the Development Application as required by s 27 of the EPA Regulation.
The BASIX Certificate satisfies the requirement in s 27 of the EPA Regulation as it has been issued no earlier than 3 months before the date on which the Development Application was made.
The LEP is the relevant local environmental planning instrument that applies to the site. Under cl 2.1 of the LEP, the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. A dwelling house is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.
Pursuant to the Land Use Table in the LEP, the R2 Low Density Residential Zone objectives are:
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
To provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai.
The permissibility of the proposed development for ‘in-fill self care housing’ in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the application of s 79 of the Housing SEPP is discussed at [24] above.
The parties submit that the Court can be satisfied that the proposed development, as amended, is compatible with the R2 Low Density Residential Zone objectives.
The Court is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.
Clause 2.7 of the LEP relates to demolition, which is permissible with consent. The amended DA seeks consent for demolition of existing structures on the site.
Clause 4.3 of the LEP relates to Height of buildings (HoB). Pursuant to this clause, the site is subject to a maximum building height control of 9.5 m. The parties advise that the proposed development has a maximum building height of less than 9.5 m which complies with this requirement.
Clause 4.4 of the LEP relates to Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The parties submit that the maximum FSR required under the LEP are overridden by the provision of s 108(2)(c) of the Housing SEPP and which prevails in so far as any inconsistency with the LEP (refer to [27(10)]) above.
Clause 5.10 of the LEP relates to Heritage Conservation. The parties advise that the site is not identified as comprising a heritage item nor is it located within a heritage conservation area identified in the LEP.
Pursuant to cl 5.21, the consent authority is required to consider any potential flood impacts and to 'allow development on land that is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land'. The parties advise that the site is affected by minor overland flows entering the site from the north during the 1% AEP flood event.
The parties submit that they are satisfied that the proposed development complies with the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2025 (DCP) Part 24, having due regard to existing floodwater behaviour occurring near the site, and that the Court would be satisfied that the proposed development satisfies cl 5.21 of the LEP.
Clause 6.1 of the LEP relates to acid sulfate soils. The parties advise that:
The site is identified as containing ‘Class 5’ Acid Sulfate Soils;
The proposed works are not located within 500 m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres AHD and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre AHD; and
The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy the requirements of cl 6.1 of the LEP.
Clause 6.2 of the LEP relates to Earthworks. Pursuant to this clause the consent authority must ensure that earthworks for which a development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.
The parties advise that their engineering experts agree that based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Geo-Environmental Engineering Revision 1 dated 29 August 2025, together with the imposition of suitable conditions of consent, there is no expected detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land, and that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of cl 6.2 of the LEP.
Clause 6.3 of the LEP relates to Biodiversity protection. The parties advise that:
Pursuant to cl 6.3 of the LEP, a portion of the subject site is mapped as containing 'Biodiversity' on Council's Terrestrial Biodiversity Map (BV Map);
The site is not identified on the BV Map as having biodiversity values. A Flora and Fauna Report prepared by Narla Environmental Pty Ltd dated 3 September 2025 (the Flora and Fauna Report) has been provided in support of the amended DA;
The Flora and Fauna Report provides an assessment of the impacts to native vegetation and habitat and prescribed biodiversity impacts as well as impacts on flora and fauna; and
The parties agree that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of cl 6.3 of the LEP.
Clause 6.4 of the LEP relates to Riparian land and adjoining waterways. The parties advise that:
Pursuant to cl 6.4 of the LEP, the site is identified as containing 'Riparian Land Category 3' and 'Riparian Land Category 3a';
The proposal includes modification of the existing channel alignment involving a new precast box culvert located within the existing 3.05 m wide drainage easement; and
The proposal complies with the applicable requirements of cl 6.4 of the LEP.
Having considered the advice of the parties provided above at [12]-[53], I am satisfied that:
The Applicant’s amended DA can be approved having regard to the matters in s 4.15(1)(b) – (e) of the EPA Act;
The jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act have been satisfied; and
Approval of the proposed development is in the public interest.
Further, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
The Court notes:
That Ku-ring-gai Council, as the relevant consent authority, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), has approved the application for an amendment to development application No eDA0587/24 made on 12 December 2025 to rely on the following plans and documents:
| Plans | Prepared by | Dated | | Architectural Plans – Issue O | Gelder Group Architects | 26.11.2025 | | Landscape Plans – Issue H | Paul Scrivener Landscape | 18.11.2025 | | Stormwater Management Plans – Issue B | Hydracor Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd | 03.10.2025 | | Flood Mitigation Plans – Issue D | Hydracor Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd | 04.09.2025 | | Access Report (Ref: PAA_23240) – Revision 6 | Purple Apple Access | 01.12.2025 | | Aboricultural Impact Assessment & Tree Protection Plan – Revision 5 | Tree Survey Pty Ltd | 19.11.2025 | | BASIX Certificate No. 1774964M_04 | Building Sustainability Assessments | 24.10.2025 | | Building Code of Australia Compliance Report (Volume 1) – Ref:3657 – Rev A Final | J Squared Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd | 01.09.2025 | | Building Code of Australia Compliance Report (Volume 2) – Ref: 3657 – Rev A Final | J Squared Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd | 01.09.2025 | | Construction Traffic Management Plan – Issue C2 Ref: 24248 | Transport Strategies | 09.2025 | | Design Verification Statement | Gelder Group Architects | 29.10.2025 | | Detailed Site Investigation Report – Ref: ES9507/2 | GSNE Services Pty Ltd | 04.12.2025 | | Flood Investigation Report – Ref: CC240107_FS – Revision 3 | Hydracor Consulting Engineers | 03.10.2025 | | Flora and Fauna Report | Narla Environmental Pty Ltd | 03.09.2025 | | Geotechnical Investigation Report – Ref: G24071PYM-R01F – Revision 1 | Geo-Environmental Engineering | 29.08.2025 | | Mechanical Plant Design and Road Traffic Noise Assessment Acoustic Report – Ref: NSS24680 | Noise and Sount Services Pty Ltd | 12.2025 | | Riparian Land Assessment | Narla Environmental Pty Ltd | 24.10.2025 | | Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment – Ref: 24248 | Transport Strategies | 09.2025 | | Waste Management Plan | Gelder Group Architects | 28.08.2025 |
The Court orders that:
Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the amount of $15,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application No eDA0587/24 as amended, for demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation, construction of 22 independent living units, basement parking, landscaping, removal of trees and associated works pursuant to Pt 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 at 3 and 5 Lofberg Road, West Pymble, NSW, 2073, legally described as Lot A in DP 395187 and Lot B in DP 395187, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
**********
Annexure A (562 KB, pdf)
MSV Pinnacle Pty Ltd
Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1088