Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council - [2019] NSWLEC 1479 - NSWLEC 2019 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council

[2019] NSWLEC 1479

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2019-07-18

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2019-07-18

Catchwords

[2004] NSWLEC 399 Botany Bay City Council v Pet Carriers International Pty Ltd (2013) 201 LGERA 116
[2013] NSWLEC 147 CEAL Limited v Minister for Planning (2007) 159 LGERA 232
[2007] NSWLEC 302 Chamwell Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council (2007) 151 LGERA 400
[2011] NSWCA 349 Jonah Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2006) 144 LEGERA 408

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

[2004] NSWLEC 399 Botany Bay City Council v Pet Carriers International Pty Ltd (2013) 201 LGERA 116[2013] NSWLEC 147 CEAL Limited v Minister for Planning (2007) 159 LGERA 232[2007] NSWLEC 302 Chamwell Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council (2007) 151 LGERA 400[2011] NSWCA 349 Jonah Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2006) 144 LEGERA 408[2006] NSWLEC 99 Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council (2006)143 LGERA 277 Oshlack v Rous Water (No 2) (2012) 189 LGERA 243[2012] NSWLEC 111 Weal v Bathurst City Council (2000) 111 LGERA 181[2000] NSWCA 88 Young v Gosford City Council (2001) 120 LGERA 243

Judgment (58 paragraphs)

[1]

12] NSWLEC 111 Weal v Bathurst City Council (2000) 111 LGERA 181; [2000] NSWCA 88 Young v Gosford City Council (2001) 120 LGERA 243; [2001] NSWLEC 191 Texts Cited: Australian Standard AS2890.1 2004 Austroads Guide to Road Design Ballina Development Control Plan 2012 Ballina Flood Risk Management Strategy Ballina Shire Council Stormwater Management Standards for Development Dispersal of the Mosquito Aedes vigilax from Urban Estuarine Wetlands in Sydney, Australia, Journal of Medical Entomology in 2019 Healthy Estuaries for Healthy Oysters, NSW DPI 2017 NSW Noise Policy NSW Oyster Industry Strategy Planning for Bush Fire Protection, Department of Planning, 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd (Applicant) Ballina Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: I Hemmings SC (Applicant) J Reid (Respondent)

[3]

Judgment

COMMISSIONER: The Applicant lodged the relevant development application with Ballina Shire Council on 4 June 2018. The Applicant is appealing the deemed refusal of the application in accordance with the provisions of s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act).
In preparation for the hearing and in response to the expert joint conferencing, the Applicant sought leave of the Court to amend the development application. The application has been amended a total of five times since the filing of Class 1 application with the Court. The material changes to the application include:

a reduction in the number of dwellings from 154 to 75;
the provision of vehicular access to the development via an access way from North Creek Road;
the removal of the proposed wellness centre; and
the relocation of the vehicular access bridge to connect the proposed development to the existing Palm Lake Resort (seniors housing) in response to bushfire evidence.

The amended application seeks development consent for the erection of an extension of an existing Seniors Housing Development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP HSPD). The amended application seeks approval for:

75 serviced self-care dwellings
road construction
earthworks, site filling
stormwater management
infrastructure works
vegetation removal and
environmental protection works.

The development is proposed to be staged. All earthworks and civil works will be completed as part of Stage 1 (Exhibit K).
The amended development application involves substantial earthworks including the importation of approximately 207,278 cubic metres of fill (Exhibit 14).
The Respondent maintains that the proposed development should be refused on the following grounds: 1. the site of the proposed development is unsuitable for the intensity of development sought by the application; 2. if classified as a driveway, the proposed access way to North Creek Road is development that is outside the bounds of the site compatibility certificate (SCC) and is not permissible; 3. the proposed intersection with North Creek Road is unsafe due to insufficient sight lines; 4. there is insufficient information to assess the impacts of the proposed road and intersection works on North Creek Road which are essential to the development; 5. emergency access for fire appliances in the event of a bushfire will be impeded by unlawful parking on Forrest Oak Boulevarde (referred to in the evidence as the BUPA Access Road); 6. there is uncertainty as to the extent of fill volume required for the development and whether surcharge loading is required; 7. the lawfulness of the proposed stormwater discharge from the site is uncertain; 8. the development has not demonstrated that there will be no net deterioration of estuarine water quality and the remediation of existing problems to achieve estuarine water quality improvements; 9. the Court could not reasonably be satisfied that sufficient measures have been, or will be, taken to protect, and where possible enhance, the biophysical, hydrological and ecological integrity of the coastal wetland. 10. the application does not adequately address safety of future residents in event of a flood event; 11. the application has not adequately considered or made any assessment of the construction phase of the development; 12. that the proposed removal of the two copses of retained vegetation and the offsets offered by the application are unsatisfactory; 13. that the indirect impacts of a change to the groundwater and post development flows to the Western Creek will impact downstream ecology; 14. that the Applicant has not correctly assessed the extent of the saltmarsh community on the subject site; and 15. that the proposed vegetation management plan (VMP) is in adequate.

[5]

Public Submissions

The Development Application was placed on public exhibition from 11 July 2018 to 10 August 2018. Residents of the existing Seniors Housing Development adjacent the subject site and surrounding property owners and occupants were notified of the application by letter. Two signs were placed on the property (North Creek Road and Corks Lane) and the application was notified in the Ballina Advocate.
The Council received a total of 15 submissions in relation to the application. The issues raised in these submissions are summarised in the Council's Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit 2) as follows: 1. Potential for flooding and drainage impacts on adjoining properties (and resulting odour, mosquito breeding issues) and the surrounding area. 2. The proposal does not take into account climate change and frequency and severity of extreme weather events. The proposal only has a 100mm freeboard over the minimum fill level for the site. 3. Inadequate information provided in relation to proposed development and the impacts on surrounding properties (during and post construction) - filling of the "expansion" site, impacts on ground water, drainage and flooding. 4. Overloading of communal facilities in the existing Seniors Housing Development from the proposed 156 dwellings. 5. Insufficient car parking within existing Seniors Housing Development (around communal facilities) to cater for proposed additional 156 dwellings. 6. Internal traffic and pedestrian impacts for the existing Seniors Housing Development from additional vehicles (pedestrians and vehicles share road space). 7. New access should be provided off North Creek Road as the existing intersection and private access road cannot cope with construction traffic and additional resident/employee traffic. 8. Impacts of construction traffic, earthworks and construction works on residents of the existing Seniors Housing Development, the surrounding environment (vegetation and tidal waterways) and surrounding locality. 9. Use of sand-based fill will result in construction and maintenance issues for road and pedestrian pathways (civil works defects - cracking of pavements). 10. Concerns regarding emergency vehicles access for the existing Seniors Housing Development, proposed development, BUPA aged care facility and surrounding locality. 11. The proposal does not comply with s 6 of the Retirement Villages Act 1999. 12. Existing vegetation along Western Creekcreek line should be retained and there is no greenspace in the proposed development. 13. The land should be preserved as wetlands. 14. Inadequate information provided in relation to flora and fauna impacts resulting from the proposal. 15. The use of offset credits on other land or making a financial offset in relation to the removal of the 2.53ha of Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) Swamp Oak Flood Plain Forest does not negate the degradation of the local environment. 16. Inadequate consideration of the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture (SEPP 62), including the publication Healthy Estuaries for Healthy Oysters, NSW DPI 2017. 17. Non-compliance with Ballina Shire Stormwater Management Guidelines. 18. Impacts of stormwater from the proposed development on existing oyster growing areas. 19. Cumulative stormwater impacts of surrounding developments on existing oyster growing areas and other marine species. 20. Questions raised over the veracity of the submitted Stormwater Report and Plan - detaining flows, design parameters of bio-retention basins (incorrect pH), incorrect statements made regarding lawful point of discharge, flow direction and drainage. 21. Increased siltation and foetid water pooling to the east along North Creek Road has resulted from the existing Seniors Housing Development. 22. Impacts on quality of estuarine environment and oyster growing areas. 23. Proximity to the Ballina Airport and noise impacts. 24. Questions raised in relation to Developer's compliance with DA 2004/328 - insufficient street and villa numbering, non-compliance with Building Standards and conditions of consent relating to roof colour, mosquito screening and crime prevention.
The amended application was renotified and a total of 24 submissions were received by the Council. In addition to the retention of the previous concerns, the following additional issues were raised within the submissions: 1. The new location of the proposed bridge, linking the development to the existing Seniors Housing Development, will create amenity impacts (noise, headlights, air pollution) for properties in proximity to the intersection (Poinsettia Street and Lavender Boulevard). This detrimental impact is unreasonable. 2. The deletion of the Wellness Centre will unreasonably increase pressure on existing facilities within the current village. 3. That the duration of construction is unknown, but given the extent of fill will require significant road transport. Any approval should ensure that the existing village road network is not utilised for construction access.
At the commencement of the proceedings, the Court heard from a number of residents and adjoining owners in regards to their concerns with the proposed development. The opportunity was also provided to the Court to view a number of adjoining and proximate properties. The oral submissions of the residents reiterated many of the proceeding issues. In addition, they emphasised:

the potential impact of the development on local birdlife and wildlife abundance in general;
the capacity of the facilities and infrastructure of the existing Seniors Housing Development to service the additional population;
the current location of the proposed internal bridge linking the existing Seniors Housing Development to the new development was not known to residents when they moved into the existing village. It will impact on their amenity, the views from their villas and the ambience of their street;
the amenity impacts arising from the development for residents adjoining the access way and the proposed bridge link, as well as the impact of the development on the rural character and lifestyle of properties on North Creek Road;
the implementation of the acoustic wall to the access way from North Creek Road will: affect the outlook from the adjoining properties; be too close to the adjoining homes; and be out of character with the rural area. Further the construction of the wall, and the movement of delivery vehicles during construction, may impact on the structure of adjoining homes; and
the potential for stormwater egress from the site to flow into adjoining land and waterways impacting flood levels and water quality.

[6]

The Planning framework for determining the development application

The application is lodged under the provisions of SEPP HSPD as 'serviced self-care housing'. That type of development is defined at cl 13(3) of SEPP HSPD as: seniors housing that consists of self-contained dwellings where the following services are available on the site: meals, cleaning services, personal care, nursing care.
The development application is accompanied by a Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) issued on 12 October 2017. Consistent with cl 25(5) of SEPP HSPD, the relevant delegates states in the certificate: "I certify that in my opinion - the site described in Schedule 1 is suitable for more intensive development; and - the use of the site for dwellings designed for seniors and people with a disability is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment or land uses having regard to the criteria set out in clause 25(5)(b); and - development for the purposes of seniors housing of the kind proposed in the development application is compatible with the surrounding land uses only if it satisfies certain requirements specified in Schedule 2 of this certificate." (Exhibit 2, Folder 1)
The items listed at Schedule 2 of the certificate are as follows: "Requirements imposed on determination: 1. The final layout, building construction and onsite facilities in the proposed seniors housing development will be subject to the resolution of issues relating to: - aircraft noise; - drainage, flooding and site filling; - traffic; - bushfire protection; - acid sulfate soil management; - land contamination; and - flora, fauna and tree removal (including impact on SEPP 14 wetlands and potential compensation for the loss of the former rehabilitation area associated with DA/2004/328)" (Exhibit 2, Folder 1)
Notwithstanding the issue of the SCC, cl 24(3)(a)(ii) of SEPP HSPD states that the consent authority may refuse to grant consent to a development application following its own assessment of the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding environment.
Figure 1 to the SCC identifies the area of the Land which is certified as being suitable for more intensive development. Relevantly, all parts of the proposed development now fall within the area certified by the SCC, with the exception of the southernmost part of the access road to North Creek Road. The SCC expires on 12 October 2019.
I accept the agreed evidence of the planning experts that the proposed development satisfies cl 26 of SEPP HSPD: Access to services and facilities. The planning experts state their agreement as follows: "It is agreed that the application provides sufficient detail to satisfy Clause 26(2). The development will rely on a private bus service to access services outlined in (1)(a)(b)and (c) [of cl.26 of SEPP HSPD]. The Plan of Management sets out the manner in which the bus services will operate. The bus service will meet the requirements of bus (10 passengers plus driver) set out in Clause 43 of the SEPP. The experts note that an amendment to the final version is required to refer to weekend bus services as per the requirement of Clause 26. This amendment has been made and an amended POM annexed." (Exhibit 3)
Pursuant to cl 27(1) of SEPP HSPD, the consent authority must not consent to a development application on bush fire prone land map unless it is satisfied that the development complies with the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire Protection, prepared by the NSW Rural Fire Service in co-operation with the Department of Planning, dated December 2006. Further, cl 27(2) lists matter that the consent authority must give consideration in determining an application.
SEPP HSPD at cl 28(1) states: A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage. It is stated by the Respondent that this will be achieved by the extension of the existing services from the existing Seniors Housing Development (Exhibit 1).
In part, the proposed deferred commencement condition requires at (i) the details of 'water and sewer mains required the service the development via DA/2018/321 to be located in North Creek Road and their position outside the pavement in North Creek Road'.
I am satisfied on the evidence (Exhibit U) that cl 28(1) of SEPP HSPD is met. Similarly, on this basis I am satisfied that the precondition at cl 7.7 of Ballina Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012) is met.
I accept the agreed evidence of the planning experts that pursuant to cl 30 of SEPP HSPD the site analysis is satisfactory and that has been taking into account in the development application. Further, I note that the planning experts agree that the written statement provided by the Applicant addresses how the design principles in Div 2 of SEPP HSPD have been addressed (cl 32 of SEPP HSPD).
Clause 40 of SEPP HSPD provides development standards including minimum sizes, and building heights. The planning experts have considered these standards as part of their joint report (Exhibit 3). I accept the evidence of the planning experts and find that the proposed development satisfied the development standards detailed in cl 40 of SEPP HSPD.
Further, I am satisfied that the future residents will have reasonable access to: home delivered meals; personal care and home nursing; and assistance with housework as required by cl 42 of SEPP HSPD. In reaching this satisfaction, I accept the agreed evidence of the planning experts as follows: "…as detailed in the POM, the proposal will rely on a combination of meals being provided in the communal dining facility that is located within the existing retirement village in addition to third party provision (by an approved provider for Aged Care Services in accordance with the Aged Care Act, 1997). A letter has been provided by the third party provider to confirm they have capacity to serve the needs of the development at all times that the communal dining facility is not available. In addition, this provider will provide personal care, home nursing and property maintenance." (Exhibit 3)
Clause 43 of SEPP HSPD is in the following terms 43 Transport services to local centres (1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter to carry out development for the purpose of serviced self-care housing on land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes unless the consent authority is satisfied that a bus capable of carrying at least 10 passengers will be provided to the residents of the proposed development: (a) that will drop off and pick up passengers at a local centre that provides residents with access to the following: (i) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, (ii) community services and recreation facilities, (iii) the practice of a general medical practitioner, and (b) that is available both to and from the proposed development to any such local centre at least once between 8am and 12pm each day and at least once between 12pm and 6pm each day. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply to a development application to carry out development for the purposes of the accommodation of people with dementia. (3) In this clause, bank service provider has the same meaning as in clause 26.
Clause 43 is met by the Applicant through the provision of a private bus service. The scope of the service is detailed in the Operational Plan of Management (Exhibit C). "Bus Service: Two private mini buses will be kept on site, the onsite management staff will run a regular bus service to local shops, bank services, general medical practitioners, and recreational facilities etc. The schedule for the village bus service will be set in conjunction with the residents and managed to avoid conflict with local peak traffic time. The bus service will be available to transport residents from the village to Ballina Fair and Ballina Central shopping centres at least once between 8am and 12pm Monday to Friday and at least once between 12pm and 6pm Monday to Friday. These centres provide access to shops, banking and postal services, commercial uses and medical practitioners. Each of these regular destination has a sealed footpath with a gradient from the bus drop off/ pick up location to the entry of the destination of less than 1:14, providing a safe means of access by wheelchair or the like. … A village bus will also be available for resident outings as organised by the onsite management team." (Exhibit C)
The bus provision detailed by the Operational Plan of Management is proposed to be modified by the following agreed condition: "A private community bus service is required to be made available to the residents of the 75 serviced self care dwellings approved as part of this consent. The bus service is to be available to transport residents from the development to the Ballina Fair Shopping Centre and the Ballina Central Shopping centres at least once per day between 8am and 12pm and once per day between 12pm and 6pm, seven days per week. The private community bus is to have a capacity for seating a minimum of 10 passengers plus driver." (Exhibit 22, KK)
On the basis of the above condition, I am satisfied that cl 43 of SEPP HSPD is met.
Clause 44 of SEPP HSPD provides that the services be available in a timely manner upon completion of the housing intended for residents. It is agreed that this is addressed by the provision of facilities and services within the existing Seniors Housing Development adjacent the site. No new communal facilities are proposed by this application.
Clause 50 of SEPP HSPD provides standards that cannot be used to refuse consent got self-contained dwellings. Relevant to the current application are the following standards: (a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys), … (e) solar access: if living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70% of the dwellings of the development receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter, …
The development application comprises integrated development, being a 'special fire protection purpose' under s 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. Concurrence from the NSW Rural Fire Services has not been provided. Pursuant to the provisions of s 39(6)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the Court may still determine the appeal.
State Environmental Planning Policy Coastal Management (Coastal Management SEPP) was gazetted on 3 April 2018. Under this instrument, the subject site is nominated as a 'coastal environment area'. However, cl 21(1) of the Coastal Management SEPP provides: The former planning provisions continue to apply (and this Policy does not apply) to a development application lodged, but not finally determined, immediately before the commencement of this Policy in relation to land to which this Policy applies.
The "former planning provisions" are defined in cl 21(4) of the Coastal Management SEPP to mean: (a) the provisions of each of the following Policies as in force immediately before the Policy's repeal: (i) State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands, (ii) State Environmental Planning Policy No 26 - Littoral Rainforests, (iii) State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 - Coastal Protection, and (b) the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 that would be in force if that Policy had not been amended by this Policy.
The effect is that the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 14 - Coastal Wetlands (SEPP 14) continue to apply to the development applications lodged before the repeal date. No specific provisions of this instrument are in contention between the parties.
SEPP Coastal Management is a matter for consideration under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act as a draft instrument.
The subject site falls within land identified within SEPP Coastal Management on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforests Area Map (CWLRA map). The CWLRA map distinguishes between land mapped as 'coastal wetland', 'proximity area for coastal wetlands', 'littoral rainforests and 'proximity area for littoral rainforests'. The development area encroaches on land mapped as 'proximity area for coastal wetlands'.
Clause 10 of the Coastal Management SEPP applies to the site. It states: 11 Development on land in proximity to coastal wetlands or littoral rainforest (1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land identified as 'proximity area for coastal wetlands' or 'proximity area for littoral rainforest' on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Map unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on: (a) the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or (b) the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.
The Biodiversity Offsets Scheme applies to local developments assessed under Part 4 of the EPA Act that trigger the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) threshold or is likely to have a significant effect on threatened species based on the 'test of significance' at s 7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (Biodiversity Conservation Act). The Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 sets out the threshold levels for when the BOS is triggered. For the subject site, the BOS is triggered as 'impacts occur on an area mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map published by the Minister for the Environment'.
The Applicant has prepared a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and identified that offsets are required in the form of ecosystem credits. This is discussed later in the judgment at [191] and following.
The SEPP 62 was repealed on 27 February 2019. The subject development application was lodged prior to the repeal of the instrument and pursuant to the relevant saving provisions, it is agreed between the parties that SEPP 62 still applies to the current development application. The aims of SEPP 62 are detailed in cl 3 of the instrument as follows: (a) to encourage sustainable aquaculture, including sustainable oyster aquaculture, in the State, namely, aquaculture development which uses, conserves and enhances the community's resources so that the total quality of life now and in the future can be preserves and enhanced, and (b) to make aquaculture development permissible in certain zones under the Standard Instrument, as identified in the NSW Land Based Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy, and (c) to set out the minimum site location and operational requirements for permissible aquaculture development (the minimum performance criteria), and (d) to establish a graduated environmental assessment regime for aquaculture development based on the applicable level of environmental risk associated with site and operational factors (including risks related to climate change, in particular rising sea levels), and (e) to apply the Policy to land-based aquaculture development and oyster aquaculture development in the State and to include facility for extension of the Policy to natural water-based aquaculture.
Part 3A of SEPP 62 details the requirements for a consent authority to consider effects of a proposed development on oyster aquaculture. In accordance with cl 15B of SEPP 62 the application was referred to the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW Fisheries). The response from NSW Fisheries, which must be considered in determining the application (s15B(2)) concludes that: "DPI Fisheries has prepared this letter of advice because the subject proposal risks degrading of water quality within North Creek and the Richmond River estuary generally. The risk is especially relevant to the nearby Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas. Such an outcome is inconsistent with the intended outcome of SEPP62 which is to achieve no net deterioration of estuarine water quality and remediation of existing problems. Improving stormwater quality management by incorporating addition components of water sensitive urban design and achieving habitat buffers to Key Fish Habitat that comply with DPI Fisheries policy are two ways that the risk of water quality impacts on North Creek can be reduced." (Exhibit 1)
Clause 15C of SEPP 62 states: A consent authority may refuse to grant consent to development: (a) if it is satisfied that the development will have an adverse effect on, or impede or be incompatible with: (i) any oyster aquaculture development that is being carried out (whether or not within a priority oyster aquaculture area), or (ii) any oyster aquaculture development that may in the future be carried out within a priority oyster aquaculture area, or (b) if it is not satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to avoid or minimise any such adverse effect, impediment or incompatibility.
Pursuant to cl 15D, the NSW Oyster Industry Strategy must be taken into account by the consent authority. Under cl 5.1 of this strategy, the oyster growing areas in North Creek (in the vicinity of North Creek Road) are designated 'Oyster Priority Areas'.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land at cl 7(1) requires the consent authority to consider, before the grant of consent if the site is contaminated. The Applicant has prepared a Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation over the subject site (Exhibit D). The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed low density residential development. I am satisfied that the requirements of cl 7(1) are met.
In compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, relevant BASIX certificates have been lodged for the development (Exhibit DD).
The land is zoned RU2: Rural landscape under the LEP 2012. Pursuant to cl 2.3(2) of LEP 2012, the consent authority is to have regard to the objectives of the zone. They are: • To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base. • To maintain the rural landscape character of the land. • To provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture. • To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. • To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones. • To enable small-scale tourist-orientated development that is compatible with the rural nature of the land. • To encourage development that involves restoration or enhancement (or both) of the natural environment if consistent with the production and landscape character of the land. • To enable development that does not adversely impact on the natural environment, including habitat and waterways. • To ensure that there is not unreasonable or uneconomic demands (or both) for the provision of public infrastructure.
The relevant development standard for height (cl4.3) is 8.5m, however given the operation of cl 4.3A this dimension is taken from the minimum height on the Building Height Allowance Map to account for the need to respond to the flood constraint of the land. For the subject site, this height is 1.9m AHD. The experts agree that the amended plans are compliant with the height standard.
The Respondent argues that cl 5.10(8): Aboriginal places of heritage significance in LEP 2012 is relevant to the determination of the development application as the works proposed in North Creek Road, whilst not part of the development for which consent is sought, are a fundamental component of the proposal. Works in North Creek Road are proximate to a mapped item of Aboriginal Heritage significance. The Applicant has prepared an Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Exhibit P).
Clause 7.9(3) of LEP 2012 states that development consent must not be granted for the carrying out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority. The planning experts agree that the Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan in Exhibit C satisfies this requirement, subject to the imposition of agreed conditions. I accept their agreement.
Clause 7.2(4) Earthworks states that prior to the grant of consent for earthworks, the following matters must be considered: (a) the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development, (b) the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land, (c) the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both, (d) the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties, (e) the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material, (f) the likelihood of disturbing relics, (g) the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area, (h) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.
The matters in cl 7.2(4) of LEP 2012 are addressed later in the judgment.
The site is mapped on the Strategic Growth Areas Map under LEP 2012 as a 'strategic growth area'. Clause 8 of LEP 2012 applies to land identified in the map. The objective of cl. 8 is 'to ensure that strategic urban development opportunities in the Strategic Urban Growth Area are maintained'.
Clause 7.8(3) states: (3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land identified in subclause (2) (a)unless the consent authority has considered whether the development may preclude future urban or employment land uses on the land having regard to: (a) the orderly and coordinated provision of infrastructure, and (b) the maintenance of amenity and scenic values, and (c) land use conflict impacts associated with stormwater or wastewater discharge and emissions, including noise, dust and odour, and (d) site access, generation of traffic and the efficient functioning of transport infrastructure.
The Ballina Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP 2012) applies to the development.
At section 3.6 in Chapter 2: General and Environmental Controls, DCP 2012 provides the following: "3.6.2 Planning Objectives a. Minimise nuisance and health risk associated with mosquitoes; and b. Minimise human contact with mosquitoes. 3.6.3 Development Controls …. iv. Development on land identified as "Coastal Plains and Lowlands" on the Mosquito Management Map that comprises: • subdivision involving the creation of more than 10 lots, • seniors housing or tourist and visitor accommodation on land not presently zoned for urban development, or • any development that includes stormwater control ponds or water features designed or capable of holding water for a period in excess of 48 hours; requires the provision of either: • a minimum 100m wide buffer in a form suitable for the management of mosquito risk between the source of mosquito hazard / breeding sites and proposed urban land uses, or • an entomological report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional that addresses the risk to humans associated with mosquitoes and associated management measures. … vi. An entomological report required under (iv) or (v) is to include: • Documentation of the qualifications and experience of the person(s) undertaking the assessment; • Details of the methodologies used; • Evidence that fieldwork has been undertaken between November and April; and • Information concerning the measures to minimise the potential impact on future residents or site users from mosquitoes originating external to the development site."

[10]

Access way from North Creek Road

The proposed development is on land zoned RU2 Rural Landscape Zone. The development of the subject site for the purposes of serviced self-care housing (seniors housing) is permissible because of the issue of the SCC and the provisions of SEPP HSPD.
The proposed access way from North Creek Road is not within the bounds of the SCC. The Respondent argues that when the access way is properly characterised as "a use for the purpose of the proposed seniors housing development",If this submission is accepted the Respondent argues that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to approve the use of the road as: it is outside the certified by the SCC; and is otherwise a prohibited use on the land (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 9).
Ms Reid, counsel for the Respondent, argues that when characterising whether the access way to North Creek Road is part of the seniors housing development or a 'road' the decision of Preston CJ in Chamwell Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council (2007) 151 LGERA 400; [2007] NSWLEC 114 ('Chamwell') confirms the correct approach to the characterisation of use (at [27]-[28]): "Proper characterisation 27 In planning law, use must be for a purpose: Shire of Perth v O'Keefe (1964) 110 CLR 529 at 534-535 and Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (1993) 80 LGRA 173 at 188. The purpose is the end to which land is seen to serve. It describes the character which is imparted to the land at which the use is pursued: Shire of Perth v O'Keefe (1964) 110 CLR 529 at 534. 28 In determining whether land is used for a particular purpose, an enquiry into how that purpose can be achieved is necessary: Council of the City of Newcastle v Royal Newcastle Hospital (1957) 96 CLR 493 at 499-500. The use of land involves no more than the "physical acts by which the land is made to serve some purpose": at 508."
In conclusion, Ms Reid argues: "In the case of the use of the Land for seniors housing, the access way will be designed to look like a driveway pursuant to Australian Standard AS2890.1.2004, it will only be accessed by residents through a gate and a security pass. The construction of the dwellings rely on a paved 'road' network for the purposes of the seniors housing community. The access will provide access to the public road and the ancillary facilities within the proposed development. The proposed development could not function on the land without the access way. Viewed this way, the proposed access way is intended to be used and will be used for the purpose of seniors housing." (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 10).
On the preceding basis, Ms Reid argues that the access way is integral to the development and as characterised for the purpose of seniors housing is prohibited. She argues the Court has no power to approve the development.
In the alternative, the Applicant argues that within the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone, 'roads' are a nominate permissible use, and therefore the access way from North Creek Road to the development within the bounds of the SCC is permissible in the zone.
Mr Hemmings SC, counsel for the Applicant, relies on the decision of Cripps CJ in Argyropolous v Canterbury Municipal Council (1988) 66 LGERA 203 ('Argyropolous'). He notes that in Argyropolous, the land at the head of the battle axe block was zoned to permit light industrial use. The access handle, however, was zoned residential, in which the light industrial use was prohibited. Mr Hemmings submits the following extract from Argyropolous at [207] is relevant to the current proceedings: "In my opinion, a 'road' use is contemplated by the scheme as a separate use. The function of a road is to permit the passing and repassing of vehicles. The use of the handle for a 'road' which is a nominate, permissive use under the relevant residential zoning does not become an innominate, prohibited use because the start and/or destination of vehicles passing over the road is light industrial land."
In contrast to the submissions of Ms Reid, Mr Hemmings argues that the decision in Chamwell is not directly relevant to the current proceedings as 'it has very different facts' (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 7).

[11]

Findings

A development application can only be made to carry out development for which consent is required by an environmental planning instrument. A development application cannot be made for development that is prohibited. In this case, LEP 2012 is the relevant environmental planning instrument.
The task of correctly categorising the purpose, or purposes, of a particular use or development application is a threshold question in determining whether a particular development application is capable of lawful determination. If the Court accepts the submission of the Respondent, that the proposed use of the access way is prohibited, the current development application is an ineffective application and the Court would have no power to approve the development sought (s 4.13 of the EPA Act).
In addition to the cases referenced by the Counsel for the parties, two other decisions are of relevance: Friends of Pryor Park Incorporated v Ryde Council [1995] NSWLEC 160 ('Friends of Pryor Park') and Botany Bay City Council v Pet Carriers International Pty Ltd (2013) 201 LGERA 116; [2013] NSWLEC 147 ('Pet Carriers').

The approach outlined in Friends of Pryor Park is that once a determination of permissibility is made by categorising a purpose, the fact that it may also fall within another purpose is legally irrelevant. The relevant passage of the decision is extracted below (at page 5): "The respondent's competing argument is that, where as in the present case, the proposed development falls within the permissible purpose of community facilities, development consent may be legally granted to the proposed development of that purpose and the fact that the development also falls within another purpose, namely childcare centre, is legally irrelevant to the validity of the development consent granted for the permissible purpose. … In my judgement the Respondent's argument is correct and is clearly to be preferred to the Applicant's competing argument."
the decision of Preston CJ in Pet Carriers at [32] states: "In this situation, the question of characterisation is to be answered by reference to the particular terms of the environmental planning instrument and the land use table for the zone in which the development is to be carried out. The inquiry is whether the development can be characterised as being for a purpose that the instrument identifies as being permissible with consent and not for a purpose that the instrument identifies as being permissible without consent or as being prohibited. The focus of this inquiry is whether the development is within a nominate or innominate purpose, the terms of which are specified in the instrument. It is not to determine, at large, the category of purpose into which the development should be seen as falling and to formulate a description of that category. The latter task may be required when determining whether a development is an existing use under the EPA Act: see C B Investments Pty Ltd v Colo Shire Council at 280. But it is not the task to be undertaken when determining whether development is for a purpose that may be carried out with consent."

The definition of 'road' in LEP 2012 is: 'road means a public road or a private road within the meaning of the Roads Act 1993, and includes a classified road'.
The access way is not proposed to be dedicated to Council as a public road. The Dictionary to the Roads Act 1993 defines a 'private road' as any road that is not a public road. The Respondent, in their written submissions accepts that 'given the broad definition of 'road' adopted by the LEP, any type of access way on private land could be categorised as a private road' (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 8).
It is agreed between the parties that a 'road' is a permissible use in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone.
On the basis of the case law, and in particular the correlation of the facts in Argyropolous with the current proceedings, I accept the submissions of Mr Hemmings, and his reasoning at [70] - [72], that the access way is appropriately characterised as a road and is permissible.

[13]

Mosquito Management

The Applicant has prepared and filed a Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment (Exhibit W) and Mr McGinn and Dr Webb have prepared a joint expert report addressing the relevant contentions in the appeal (Exhibit 4).
Relevantly, Mr McGinn and Dr Webb reach agreement on the following in their joint report:

that there currently exists environmental conditions providing breeding and refuge habitat for the important pest mosquito species Verrallina funerea ('VF mosquito') within portions of the development site and within the adjacent coastal wetland protection zone.
"by any estimation, under existing site conditions, that the seasonal abundance of Verrallina funerea would be excessive and cause nuisance biting and pose a public health risk of arbovirus transmission, for the reasonable enjoyment of the development site for residential purposes" (Exhibit 4).
that the design of the development to include open space buffers for the purpose of asset protection zones (APZ) for bushfire and the provision of a mosquito buffer will reduce the dispersal of the VF mosquito into the proposed residential allotments.
that the open space APZ and mosquito buffer will not be effective in managing the mosquito species Aedes vigilax (Saltmarsh mosquito).
that the Saltmarsh mosquito "is a seasonal nuisance biting and public health pest over most of the coastal regions of Australia where tidal saltmarsh exists, and it affects communities over the wider Ballina region in general including this development."
that the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment (Exhibit W) contains sufficient information available to make an assessment of the potential impacts from mosquitoes.
that if the Concept Stormwater Management Plan is approved and implemented as detailed then 'the risk of mosquito related impacts is adequately managed'. (Exhibit 4)

Further, the experts agree that there is presently an abundance of mosquitos on the land, but disagree as to whether the proposed development will adequately manage mosquito risk, in particular in relation to the VF mosquito.
I note that the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment has been peer reviewed by Professor Richard Russell and that both experts accept Professor Russell as highly experienced and reputable expert.
Professor Russell notes in his peer review of the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment that: "This study has provided some useful insights re the dispersal of major and minor pest species on the North Coast of New South Wales. I appreciate the objectives an limitations of mounting such a study with respect to the various species involved, but for Ve Funerea in particular, I would like to have seen traps set at 0-25m distance as, in my experience, this mosquito usually does not travel far beyond the fringe of heavy vegetation, and collections at 10m and 15m may have indicated a relatively small buffer zone may be appropriate for protection (at least at that study site)." (Exhibit 4)
Whilst Mr Webb agrees that the proposed 25m buffer will assist in minimising human contact with VF mosquitos and any subsequent nuisance or impact to health, he argues that: 'it will not reliably prevent all contact between people and mosquitos' (Exhibit 4).
As detailed at [60], DCP 2012 at 3.6.3 (iv) requires either a 100m buffer or 'an entomological report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional that addresses the risks to humans associated with mosquitoes and associated management measures.' Relevantly, the objective of the relevant DCP control is to: (a) minimise nuisance and health risk associated with mosquitos; and (b) to minimise human contact with mosquitos.
Mr Hemmings submits that on the basis of the preceding agreement of the experts the development controls in DCP 2012 are met. However, he argues that Dr Webb seeks to apply a higher, or more demanding, standard. Mr Hemmings, relying on s 4.15(3)(a) of the EPA Act, argues that this is an incorrect approach: If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority: (a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards - is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development
Mr Hemmings submits that Dr Webb applies a test of 'seeking to substantially minimise nuisance and health risks associated with mosquitos' (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 25).
Mr Hemmings argues that the Court would accept the evidence of Mr McGinn that 'dispersal across terrain free of substantial vegetation, from an abundantly populated harbourage site, is significantly attenuated at a distance of 25m' (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 26).
In relation to the second species, the Saltmarsh mosquito, Mr Hemmings references the paper prepared by Dr Webb and Professor Russell: Dispersal of the Mosquito Aedes vigilax from Urban Estuarine Wetlands in Sydney, Australia published in the Journal of Medical Entomology in 2019. He notes that the study concludes in part that: "With regard to Ae vigilax dispersing from coastal wetlands, based on the findings of this investigation, the implications are that this mosquito is dispersing so widely that buffer zones between estuarine wetlands and residential or recreational developments will not provide acceptable mitigation of pest and public health risks posed by this mosquito. … However, based on the results of our findings, the incorporation of buffer zones between estuarine wetlands and residential areas is not an effective strategy to reduce health risks associated with Ae vigilax populations." (Exhibit 4)
Given this evidence, Mr Hemmings argues that the relevant inquiry is to determine whether there has been appropriate management regimes put in place, or able to be put in place, for the proposed development to meet the objective of minimising nuisance and health risk and minimising human contact with mosquitoes. He notes that the experts have reached agreement that the proposed onsite management techniques are appropriate.
In the alternative, Ms Reid argues that the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment (Exhibit W) places emphasis on the importance of the ongoing management of the Western Creek line and of the stormwater infrastructure to ensure that breeding grounds for mosquitos are not created. She notes that whilst the experts agree that if the proposed Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) is implemented, the risk of mosquito breeding and harbourage in the Western Creek will be effectively managed; importantly, they also agree that the Western Creek line is currently not being managed in accordance with the requirements of the existing consent for the adjoining Seniors Housing Development (and the Creek Vegetation Management Plan (CVMP) under that approval).
Further, during the onsite view, Ms Reid noted that standing water was observable in existing bio-retention filters within the adjoining Seniors Housing Development, despite the last rainfall being experienced some 5 to 7 days before the site visit (by reference to Exhibit 16). She notes that it was Mr McGinn's oral evidence that if the proposed bio-retention filters performed in this manner, he would 'definitely have a problem', presumably as they would create breeding grounds for mosquitos (Respondent's written submissions 20 August 2019, p 72).
Ms Reid notes that in the decision of Preston CJ in Jonah Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2006) 144 LGERA 408; [2006] NSWLEC 99, his Honour found at [36]-[37] that the mere unlawfulness of a past use is not a relevant factor. However, she argues that "past conduct may be taken into account where the impacts of that conduct have been unacceptable and that conduct cannot be addressed appropriately by conditions of consent" (Respondent's written submissions 20 August 2019, p. 72). She concludes that: "In circumstances where departures from onerous management obligations will expose a vulnerable population to risk of mosquito borne disease and reactions to bites (p4, Exh 4), the Court could not have confidence that a condition to maintain the riparian zone and bio-retention filters can reasonably be complied with." (Respondent's written submissions 20 August 2019, p. 73).

[14]

Findings

I accept the submission of Mr Hemmings that the effect of s 4.15(3)(a) of the EPA Act is that if the control at 3.6.3 of DCP 2012 is met, then a more onerous standard cannot be applied by the consent authority. That standard, in this case, is the provision of 'an entomological report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional that addresses the risks to humans associated with mosquitoes and associated management measures' (refer to [60]. The Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment is such a report.
It is agreed by the experts that the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment contains sufficient information available to make an assessment of the potential impacts from mosquitoes (Exhibit 4). Further, the report has been peer reviewed by a professional agreed by the experts as being highly experienced and reputable.
I am satisfied that the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment provides management measures that are sufficient for the VF mosquitos by the provision of a 25m buffer, the implementation of the VMP and by the management of the accumulation of standing water in the both the stormwater management devices and the civil works to eliminate existing ground pool mosquito breeding sites (Exhibit W).
On the basis of the agreed evidence of the experts, I accept the submission of Mr Hemmings that the objectives of the control at 3.6.3 of DCP 2012 are also met. Namely to: (a) Minimise nuisance and health risks associated with mosquitoes and (b) Minimise human contact with mosquitoes.
I am not persuaded by the submissions of Ms Reid that the obligations to maintain the riparian zone in accordance with the VMP and maintain bio-retention filters cannot reasonably be complied with. The proposed conditions of consent in this matter are extensive in response to the complexity and extent of works proposed. A number of these conditions are ongoing conditions that will require attention of the operator of the proposed development into the future. These conditions include the implementation and monitoring of the VMP implementation, compliance with the Bushfire Safety Authority for the development, the ongoing management of service providers to provide meals, personal care, nursing and housework, provision of a bus for residents etc.
There is no evidence that the intrinsic nature of the maintenance works required to manage and contain the risk of mosquito harbourage and breeding are of a class of condition that is more onerous or impractical than these remaining conditions. However, given the importance of the management of the site to minimise breeding and refuge habitat for mosquitoes, I am satisfied it is appropriate to amend condition 191 as follows (additional words bold): "191. All stormwater management infrastructure/ elements including but not limited to collecting traps, bio filtration basins and swales, and the Western Creek line, must be maintained to ensure water does not remain beyond 72hours after inflows have ceased and in accordance with the Revised Mosquito Impact Assessment approved as part of this consent. An annual unscheduled site visit is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced entomologist. They are to prepare a report on the operation of the ongoing measures and confirm they are functioning to minimise potential impact to residents from mosquitoes. The report is to be provided to the site Operators. The report is to be provided to Council officers on request."
I am satisfied that the residual risks arising from the management of mosquitos on the subject site are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

[15]

Bushfire Risk

Both Ms Reid and Mr Hemmings submit that the bushfire experts are agreed that the proposed development has appropriate APZ, the internal road system is compliant and appropriate (multiple) egress points have been provided.
Importantly, the experts agree that the management of bushfire risk to the proposed development is satisfactory (Exhibit 5).
The area of disagreement between the experts is in relation to the potential for the proposed development to impact on the existing Seniors Housing Development. Specifically: 1. whether the proposed works will impinge on the ability of the existing Seniors Housing Development to meet its bushfire safety requirements; and 2. whether the management regime for the Western Creek line proposed by the VMP is satisfactory.
Mr Thorton summarises his concerns in the joint report as follows:

The proposed VMP does not comply with the requirements of the Bushfire Safety Authority (BFSA) relating to the existing structure of development consent no. 2004/328 (the consent for the existing Seniors Housing Development). The following reasons are provided:
The BFSA requires a 50m APZ consisting of a 35m inner protection area (IPA) and a 15m outer protection area (OPA).
By reference to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 the APZ is measured from the existing dwelling (Section 3.1a)
The VMP details planting within the 50m APZ.
The APZ is non-compliant due to excessive vegetation.

At 3.1.2 'Zone 2: Riparian Vegetation', the VMP for the proposed development adopts the planting and management regime of the previous CVMP.
Mr Thorton concludes that the vegetation within the Western Creek, when managed as proposed by the VMP (and therefore the CVMP), has the potential to create a bushfire risk to the existing village.
Mr Hemmings submits that the bushfire protection regime adopted by the original consent and implemented through the CVMP provided that the Western Creek is required to be managed on an ongoing basis to ensure that it does not become a fire source. In support of this submission, Mr Hemmings references task 2 in Table 28 of the CVMP which states: 'Carry out works in a manner that does not create a bushfire hazard' (Tcpt, 18 July 2019, p 130(35)).
Further, Mr Hemmings argues that the BFSA issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) for the adjoining Seniors Housing Development adopted the approach of measuring from the building, not the fire source (Tcpt, 18 July 2019, p 115(10)). In his submission, this is confirmed by reading Conditions 1.69 and 1.70 of that consent: DA/2004/328 (Exhibit 2). Condition 1.69 and 1.70 read: "1.69 All work is to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations numbered 1,3,4,6,7,8 and 9 of Bushfire Assessment by Conacher Travers dated September 2003 (Ref 3424B). 1.70 Asset Protection zones: The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space for fire fighters and other emergency services personnel, ensuring radiant heat levels permit operations under critical conditions of radiant heat, smoke and embers, while supporting or evacuating occupants. To achieve this the following conditions apply: (i) the asset protection zones are to be modified to provide a 35m inner protection zone to the northeast and southeast and a 15m outer protection zone in the northeast and southeast." (Exhibit 2)
These submissions are supported by the evidence of Mr Swain who states in relation to the existing consent for the adjoining Seniors Housing Development and its relationship to the proposed development for which consent is sought: "The amended development layout and VMP do not conflict with the requirements of the BFSA issued for the existing seniors living and in fact confirm the provision of the 50m wide APZ to the ease and the management of the creek corridor in accordance with the CVMP to achieve a low hazard within the creek corridor." (Exhibit 5)
In the alternative, Ms Reid argues that the Court has insufficient information or assessment of how the proposed development will affect the bushfire management of the adjoining Seniors Housing Development. She argues that the Court could not be satisfied that the proposed development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the applicable version of Planning for Bushfire Protection. Without this satisfaction, Ms Reid argues that it is inappropriate to grant consent to the development.

[16]

Findings

Despite the NSW RFS not providing concurrence to the development application, I am satisfied that s 39(6) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 allows for the determination of the application irrespective.
Relevantly, s 4.14 of the EPA Act states, in part: 4.14 Consultation and development consent - certain bush fire prone land (cf previous s 79BA) (1) Development consent cannot be granted for the carrying out of development for any purpose (other than a subdivision of land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes or development for a special fire protection purpose) on bush fire prone land (being land for the time being recorded as bush fire prone land on a relevant map certified under section 10.3 (2)) unless the consent authority: (a) is satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the version (as prescribed by the regulations) of the document entitled Planning for Bush Fire Protection prepared by the NSW Rural Fire Service in co-operation with the Department (or, if another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that document) that are relevant to the development (the relevant specifications and requirements), or (b) has been provided with a certificate by a person who is recognised by the NSW Rural Fire Service as a qualified consultant in bush fire risk assessment stating that the development conforms to the relevant specifications and requirements. …
I am satisfied that the report titled: Updated Bushfire Protection Assessment, for the proposed development prepared by Mr Swain meets the requirements of subcl (b). In these circumstances, I am not persuaded by the submission of Ms Reid that the grounds of uncertainty of the potential bushfire risk of the proposed development are made out. My reasoning follows.
Following a review of the materials relevant to the development consent for the existing Seniors Housing Development and the applicable conditions of consent of DA/2004/328, I prefer the evidence of Mr Swain and the submissions of Mr Hemmings as they construe the documents. I accept their respective arguments that the Western Creek line is required by the consent of DA/2004/328 to be managed as to not be a fire source. In my view, this is plain in the documents specifically adopted by the NSW RFS in issuing a BFSA for the existing Seniors Housing Development.
This management regime for the Western Creek line for bushfire purposes will continue to be through the provisions of the CVMP (which is adopted by the VMP at 3.1.2: Riparian Corridor, Exhibit BB). Further clarity is provided by Figure 9 of the CVMP which delineates that vegetation with creek line is to be 'isolated' or in 'tree groups with discontinuous canopy' (Exhibit AA). This is consistent with the requirement for fuel management at Recommendation 4 of the Conacher Travers Bushfire Protection Assessment Report 2003 which forms part of the consent for the existing Seniors Housing Development.
I am satisfied, when properly implemented; the proposed VMP will comply with the requirements of the BFSA of development consent no. 2004/328.
I am satisfied that there are no bushfire safety matters that would warrant the refusal of the application.
On the preceding basis, I am not persuaded that the requirement for the obtaining of a BFSA as a deferred commencement consent as sought by the Respondent is warranted, or appropriately certain in its terms: Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council (2006) 143 LGERA 277 at [24] - [28] and [54] - [55].
I am satisfied that if consent for the proposed development is warranted, the Applicants proposed Conditions 3-13, 164-165 in Exhibit KK are consistent with the requirements of s 4.17 of the EPA Act and will satisfactorily manage the bushfire risk of the proposed development.

[18]

Is OSD required?

Relevantly, OSD is addressed at Chapter 2, Section 3.9 of DCP 2012. By reference to "Ballina Shire Council Stormwater Management Standards for Development", the DCP states that stormwater attenuation is not required when 'the site discharges directly into the Richmond River or other tidal waterway or waterbody'.
Dr Martens argues OSD is not required on the following grounds: 1. the development site drains to tidal water and detention is therefore not required in accordance with Council's DCP; and 2. some flow attenuation is incorporated into the stormwater drainage scheme by way of the bio-retention systems.
Further, Dr Martens notes that the consent for the existing Seniors Housing Development, discharging to the same location, was not required to provide OSD.
Whilst Dr Martens argues OSD is not required, he argues that "there is opportunity within the development footprint to further increase the retention, without affecting lot layout or extending beyond the area encompassed by the Site Compatibility Certificate" (Exhibit 6).
In contrast, Dr Johnson, whilst acknowledging the DCP control, argues that "a legal point of discharge is not obtained simply by connecting the drainage system to tidal waters" (Exhibit 6). Further, he argues that the discharge is required to not result in an increased rate of discharge in comparison to predevelopment conditions.
Dr Johnson's oral evidence is that the discharge is not to a stream that is tidal, but rather a stream that is influenced by the tide. In cross-examination, he detailed the difference as follows: whilst the stream has some degree of title range occurring in it, but it is not reflecting the full tidal range in North Creek, so it is tidally restricted to some extent at its outlet (Tcpt, 19 September 2019, p 181(15)). On this basis, he maintains detention is required.
Despite the disagreement between the experts in relation to the need for OSD, the experts have agreed that the following conditions would affect the provision of OSD, if required by the Court: 1. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the stormwater management design is to be updated to include the following amendments and additional details: a. Bioretention basins are to be modified such that on-site retention is provided for storms up to the 1 in 2 year ARI event. b. The low flow outlets from bioretention basins 1, 3 and 4 shall be modified to drain to a shallow (say 0.3 m deep) rubble drain to encourage further groundwater infiltration. i. The length of the drain shall be sized to ensure maximum potential infiltration. ii. Rubble drains shall be fitted with a central distribution manifold, wrapped in geotextile and covered with 100 mm of topsoil. iii. Rubble drains shall include regular surcharge points, say spaced at 20 m, which permit the release of bioretention drainage water when groundwater conditions are elevated or when inflow rates exceed infiltration capacity. Surcharge points must be designed to prevent mosquito habitat/breeding. c. Runoff from much of Road 1 (the site entrance road) which does not drain to the bioretention basins is to be treated via Enviropods (or similar) prior to release. d. To avoid any potential ponding of stormwater either side of fill placed for Road 1, appropriately sized cross-drainage culverts are to be provided at a minimum of 10 m spacings or where existing low points occur. e. As part of any application to Council in accordance works with s 138 of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW) to widen North Creek Road, the design should be in accordance with the following principles: i. Existing sag points and culverts should be retained where possible. ii. A litter collection device should be installed, subject to Council's agreement and satisfaction, on the outlet of any existing culverts to North Creek. 2. Prior to issue of a construction certificate, a stormwater maintenance plan shall be prepared for the stormwater management system. The plan is to include the following at a minimum: a. Vegetation and weed management regimes for the bioretention basins. b. Annual inspection and certification of the development drainage system to ensure compliance with any conditions of consent. 3. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, a monitoring plan is to be prepared. The plan is to include the following at a minimum: a. The installation of 3 permanent groundwater monitoring wells to be located along the northern and eastern extents of the development footprint. b. A monitoring regime for groundwater levels and groundwater quality. c. The requirement to prepare an annual groundwater monitoring report to be submitted to Council to demonstrate compliance with any conditions of consent. (Exhibit 6)
The ecology experts have also provided evidence in relation to the whether the Western Creek is tidal. Mr Howland prepared a preliminary assessment of the degree of tidal influence as an annexure to the Joint Report of the Ecology Experts (Exhibit 9). This assessment included the onsite measurement of changes in water depth at four locations on Western Creek. On the basis of this data. Mr Howland concludes that: 'the Western Creek line is tidally influence, but not fully tidal' (Exhibit 9).
Dr Robertson also notes in the Joint Report of the Ecology Experts that the Western Creek is 'tidally influenced' (Exhibit 9). Finally, Dr McDonald also notes that: "vegetation within and adjacent to the Western Creek line including mangroves, saltmarsh and swamp oak flood plain forest all suggest a tidal saline influence on parts of the site" (Exhibit 9).
Mr Hemmings argues that, on the collective evidence of the experts, the Court would be satisfied that OSD is not required as the development control in Chapter 2, Section 3.9 of DCP 2012 is met by the proposed development. He argues that Dr Johnson seeks to apply a higher standard than that required by DCP 2012 which is inconsistent with the provisions of s 4.15(3A) of the EPA Act.
Ms Reid argues that on the evidence of the experts the proposed point of discharge is tidally influenced, but not tidal. She argues that to meet the provisions of DCP 2012, OSD is required.
Further, if the Court determines that OSD is required, she submits that the conditions drafted and agreed by the hydrology experts are not sufficiently certain, particularly in relation to how the proposed rubble drains would interact with the need to prevent mosquito habitat/breeding, to be applied to the consent.

[19]

Findings

Further to the above evidence, I note that: 1. at section.4.2 of the Concept Stormwater Management Plan: Proposed Senior Living Development, 120 North Creek Road (Stormwater Plan), Dr Martens states that: "The existing hydraulic interactions between the unnamed watercourse and North Creek indicate that the unnamed watercourse is tidally affected and that the proposed development does not require the attenuation of flows" (Exhibit Y). Further, the Stormwater Plan confirms that the highest astronomical tide (HAT) at Ballina (1.16AHD) is 'well above the unnamed creek invert levels' (Exhibit Y). 1. As part of the implementation of the consent for the adjoining Seniors Housing Development, monitoring of a HAT event was undertaken by Council and the then Applicant in January 2011. The purpose of the inspection was to observe the inundation of the land adjacent the Western Creek line by tidal waters (Exhibit 2, tab G). Further, the consent for the adjacent village required the removal of the existing tidal flood gates, this requirement is detailed in condition 1.24 of DA/2004/327: "The existing tidal floodgates that service the existing north/south creek shall be removed from the North Creek Road drainage structure. The removal is to be undertaken in conjunction with the creek rehabilitation works" (Exhibit 2, tab G). 1. It was accepted by the parties that the consent for the adjoining Seniors Housing Development (DA/2004/327) did not require the implementation of OSD on site.
The experts are agreed that the proposed discharge point is influenced by the tide. There is disagreement as to whether it is 'tidal'. Relevantly, the hydrology experts in the joint report state: "The creek line located along the western development site boundary is partly tidal, although the range of tidal movement is likely to be reduced as a consequence of the level of the outlet to North Creek. The full extent of tidal flushing is not known although the large stands of Mangroves suggest a reasonable tidal signature above Mean Sea Level. It is likely that low tidal levels and tidal flushing are significantly curtailed on the site." (Exhibit 6)
Neither the "Ballina Shire Council Stormwater Management Standards for Development" nor DCP 2012 provide a definition of 'tidal' to assist in interpreting the intent of control. Giving the common meaning to the term derived from the Macquarie Dictionary (adjective 1. of, relating to, or characterised by tides; 2. affected by tides: a tidal estuary), I am satisfied that the proposed discharge location is tidal and OSD is not required.
I am satisfied that the development control in Chapter 2, Section 3.9 of DCP 2012 is met by the proposed development.

[20]

Water Quality and Water Quantity

The hydrology experts have two primary areas of disagreement:

Whether the MUSIC model, utilised to predict the performance of stormwater quality management systems proposed by the Applicant accurately reflects the existing site conditions; and
Whether sufficient information has been prepared to allow an assessment of the effect of the development on ground water recharge and the quality of water leaving the site.

The hydrology experts agree that the: "nutrient and suspended solids meet Council's reduction targets, but [it] is not agreed that the application has demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impacts on oyster growing areas". They also agree that "there will be no material change in surface water runoff pH, salinity, aluminium or iron levels expected due to the development as source material for these elements is not available" (Exhibit 6).
Further, the experts agree 'that the water quality solution adopted or the development is compliant with the Councils DCP' and that the ground water conditions onsite are unlikely to alter to the extent that acidic soil products are oxidised and mobilised into the surrounding environment (Exhibit 6).
However, the hydrology experts disagree in relation to the following:

what are the appropriate inputs into the MUSIC model to represent the current characteristics of the subject site;
whether baseline water quality data has been provided or is required;
whether a daily time step water model is required.

In the joint report, Dr Johnson expresses his concern that the Stormwater Management Plan does not demonstrate that water quality in North Creek will not be adversely affected by the development. His reasoning is as follows:

given the proximity of the SEPP 62 Priority Oyster areas, it is necessary to demonstrate that there would be a non-worsening effect from ground water discharges from the site; and
the MUSIC model prepared by Dr Martens fails to demonstrate this non-worsening effect as the input data in the MUSIC model assesses the existing conditions as 'rural residential' node. Dr Johnson argues the parameter in the MUSIC model that reflects the existing undeveloped nature of the site and its condition is the 'forest' node.

In response to Dr Johnson's concerns, Dr Martens argues that the use of the rural residential node in the MUSIC model most closely approximates the existing site conditions. His reasoning is as follows:

the existing site is highly disturbed having been cleared and drained.
the site exhibits numerous micro drainage structures from its previous rural use.
the site is regularly slashed.
under these conditions, significant quantities of nutrients and sediments are released into the receiving environment without any control.
the use of the rural residential node was previously accepted by the Council in approving the adjoining Seniors Housing Development.
the MUSIC model utilised for the current development application is a mix of 15% forest node and 85% rural residential with the proportion of the site allocated the forest node representing the extent of the vegetated corpses on the subject site.
the water quality results from the MUSIC model demonstrate a reduction in suspended solids, phosphorus and nitrogen levels of 82%, 69%, and 57% respectively over the existing kg/yr.

In response to Dr Johnson's evidence that a 'daily time step' model is required, Dr Martens' evidence is that:

the MUSIC model is a time step water balance model which models daily responses to rainfall, runoff, infiltration and groundwater storage and losses.
the simulation of the proposed development consisted of a 10yr, 6 minute rainfall data record.
the results of the simulation demonstrate that the proposed drainage system achieves gross recharge and surface runoff quantities which are comparable to the existing conditions.

Finally, Dr Martens includes, in the appendix to Exhibit 7, a comparison of the MUSIC model results to the calculated pollutant loads form the site utilised by BMT Consulting in the Flooding and Stormwater plan for the development application for the adjoining seniors housing development. He argues that this represents the predevelopment or existing condition loads. Importantly, he notes that, in comparing these existing condition loads to the pollutant loads utilised in the MUSIC model, the existing loads are materially higher. The lower kg/yr parameters adopted in the MUSIC model for suspended solids, phosphorus and nitrogen make the post development results more conservative.

[21]

Submissions

Ms Reid argues that despite the sensitivity of the location upstream from priority oyster areas, 'no baseline water quality data has been collected from the land to demonstrate what water quality is of the current condition' (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 32). She submits that the effect of an incorrect input value into the MUSIC model is that the development may have a detrimental impact as the mass of suspended solids exported from the site are greater than previously exists, increasing turbidity. She notes that the risk arising from this outcome is the potential contamination of the priority oyster area, adjacent North Creek Road.
Ms Reid submits that the effect of cl 15C of SEPP 62 is that a consent authority must refuse a development application "if it is satisfied that the development will have an adverse effect on, impede or be incompatible with any oyster aquaculture development that may in the future be carried out within a priority oyster aquaculture area or if it is not satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to avoid or minimise such adverse effect, impediment or incompatibility" (Respondents written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 18). Ms Reid concludes that on the basis of the evidence of Dr Johnson, the Court could not form the requisite satisfaction and should refuse consent.
In reply, Mr Hemmings raised objection to the arguments put by Ms Reid directed to the absence of baseline data. He objects on the basis that these concerns were not put to the Hydrology experts in cross-examination.
Further, Mr Hemmings argues that the agreement of the hydrologists (refer to [141]) that the requirements of DCP 2012 are met should be sufficient for the Court, as more onerous standards cannot be sought with respect to that aspect of the development (s 4.15(3A)(a) of the EPA Act).
Finally, in relation to the concerns raised by Dr Johnson in relation to the MUSIC model utilised by Dr Martens, Mr Hemmings submits that:

DCP 2012, at Part B.3 expressly refers to the use of MUSIC modelling; and
Whilst Dr Johnson may prefer alternative time periods (50yrs), the guidelines prepared by Council adopt 10yrs which has been utilised by Dr Martens.

Mr Hemmings submits that the Court will be satisfied that the information provided by the Applicant is sufficient to meet the relevant controls of DCP 2012 and demonstrate that: there will be no impact on ground water; there will be water balance and no adverse impact on the environment arising from the proposed development.

[22]

Findings

I note the hydrology experts' agreement that the water quality solution adopted for the development is compliant with the controls at 3.9.3 of DCP 2012. I accept their agreement.
I accept the submission of Mr Hemmings that a more onerous standard cannot be required in relation to water quality under the provisions of DCP 2012.
However, the proposed development is subject to the provisions of SEPP 62 which has the following precondition that must be satisfied: 15B Consultation with Director-General of Primary Industries (1) Before determining a development application for any development, a consent authority: (a) must consider whether, because of its nature and location, the development may have an adverse effect on oyster aquaculture development or a priority oyster aquaculture area, and (b) if it suspects that the development may have that effect, must give notice of the application to the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries. (2) In determining a development application for any development, a consent authority must consider any comments received from the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries pursuant to subclause (1), including, in particular, such comments as identify: (a) any adverse effect that the development may have on, or ways in which the development may impede or be incompatible with, any oyster aquaculture development or priority oyster aquaculture area, and (b) any measures to avoid or minimise any such adverse effect, impediment or incompatibility.
The required consultation was undertaken and a response provided by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) on 13 August 2018. The response raises concern about the proposed development, as it was then, as follows: "DPI Fisheries is concerned that the current development layout, in particular the compromised buffers, limit opportunities to improve water quality in North Creek. An additional matter that has not been adequately addressed is high ground water levels experienced at the site during some wet seasons and how this constraint will impact on the operation of the proposed bioretention basins." (Exhibit 2, tab B)
The hydrology experts identify the remaining issues in relation to the matters raised by DPI, and between them, as: the MUSIC model parameters and how they reflect the existing site conditions; the impact of the development on ground water recharge; and the quality of water leaving the site.
On the basis of my own site observations, the evidence and a review of the comparative pollutant loads for the forest and rural residential nodes (see table 5 of Annexure A in Exhibit 7), I prefer the evidence of Dr Martens that the adoption of the 15% forest and 85% rural residential land use appropriately reflect the existing site conditions for the purposes of the MUSIC model. I agree with and adopt Dr Martens reasoning at [144].
I am not persuaded by the submission of Ms Reid that no baseline water quality data is provided. In the absence of cross examination of the experts I am satisfied that the calculated pollutant loads from the site utilised by BMT Consulting in the Flooding and Stormwater Plan for the development application for the adjoining seniors housing development is sufficient (provided at Exhibit 6). Utilising this data, the development achieves a demonstrable improvement in water quality.
I note that on the basis that the inputs or choice of nodes in the Applicant's MUSIC model are accepted, Dr Johnson does not raise objection to the demonstration of improvement of the pollutant loads leaving the site demonstrated by Dr Martens' analysis. I also note the experts' agreement that no material change in the pH, salinity, aluminium or iron levels in any water leaving the site is expected.
I am not persuaded by Dr Johnson's evidence, or the submissions of Ms Reid, that a daily time step water model is required to demonstrate compliance with the DCP controls or in response to a likely adverse impact arising from the development.
On the preceding basis, I am satisfied that there are no hydrological matters that would warrant the refusal of the application.

[23]

Geotechnical investigation: is surcharge loading required?

Prior to the hearing, Dr Shaw and Dr Martens participated in a joint conference. As a result of the conference, the experts are in agreement that the soils and necessary fill can be made suitable for the proposed development, subject to conditions (Exhibit 8). The remaining issue is whether 'surcharge loading is required'.
Surcharge loading involves placement of additional fill on the ground surface of the site, beyond what is required to achieve the finished site level. Sufficient time is then allowed for the ground to settle and strengthen as consolidation occurs under the imposed load. Once sufficient consolidation has been achieved, the pre-load can be removed. Surcharge loading prepares the subject land to receive the load of the proposed development.
Whether surcharge loading is required is, in part, determined by core penetration testing (CPT).
The Applicant has undertaken CPT to determine the geotechnical properties of the soil and its stratification. These tests have been completed to a depth of 34m. Dr Shaw argues that the CPT should be supplemented by three additional CPT's and taken to a depth of 35m or first refusal. Without this testing, Dr Shaw argues that the extent of fill required for the development is uncertain.
Dr Shaw bases his conclusion on the following factors: "a. The proposed fill levels are higher than have previously been constructed in the area and will therefore impose significantly greater loads than have been applied to the typical soil profiles in the area warranting the additional investigations; and b Dr Shaw has encountered layers of clay below 25m depth on sites elsewhere in the area which would normally be consolidated relative to the proposed higher development loads." (Respondents written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 27)
Further, in his oral evidence, Dr Shaw notes that he has had experience since the late 1980's carrying out geotechnical investigations in Ballina.
In the event that the Court accepts Dr Shaw's evidence, the experts have agreed conditions of consent requiring: the additional testing; a settlement analysis informed by the subsequent results; and recommendations for construction methods, including whether surcharging is required.
In contrast to Dr Shaw's evidence, Dr Martens concludes that 'Based on the deeper CPT testing undertaken to date on site, surcharge loading is not likely' (Exhibit 6).
Ms Reid notes that Dr Martens' oral evidence was:

there is not physical reason why CPT testing could not have been undertaken to a deeper level;
he formed the opinion that surcharge loading was not likely to be required in part following a discussion with 'the Applicant' that it was not required on the adjoining seniors living development;
that CPT 7, being the deepest test, was not located in an area where the proposed fill will be placed; and
that the testing results of CPT 3 and 7 meant there was a high likelihood that they represented deeper depths across the site
(Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 26)

In conclusion, Ms Reid argues that without certainty of the need for surcharge loading on the site, the Court cannot properly understand or assess the construction impacts arising from the development.
Mr Hemmings submits that Dr Shaw does not express a different opinion to Dr Martens 'that surcharge loading is unlikely', but rather expresses a preference that additional CPT tests be undertaken to provide further certainty. In reaching this conclusion, Mr Hemmings emphasises that Dr Martens' conclusion that surcharge loading is unlikely is located in part of the joint expert report dealing with the agreement of the experts. Whilst Dr Shaw responds to the evidence of Dr Martens, it is Mr Hemmings' submission that he does not disagree with him.
Finally, Mr Hemmings concludes that there is no evidence that the development cannot proceed on geotechnical grounds. He submits that even if the additional 6-8 weeks of fill placement and associated truck movements to facilitate surcharge loading was to apply, the additional amenity impacts that arise would not warrant the refusal of the application.

[24]

Findings

I am not persuaded by the submissions of Ms Reid that uncertainty arising from the evidence of the geotechnical experts is such that it does not allow the Court to understand or assess the construction impacts arising from the development. My reasoning is as follows.
I concur with Mr Hemmings' reading of the joint report of the experts and I conclude that Dr Shaw does not hold a different opinion as to the certainty of the need for surcharge loading on the subject site. Rather he expresses a preference for greater certainty. I am satisfied that this greater certainty can be addressed by their agreed condition.
The experts agree that if surcharge loading is required, the impacts will be: an extension of the initial fill placement works on site by 6-8 weeks; retention of fill onsite for a period of several months; and then a further 6-8 weeks of removal of excess fill from the site. The additional 12-16 weeks of fill movement will have concurrent acoustic and traffic impacts from the haulage of materials.
I note the agreement of the experts in Exhibit 14 that the quantity of trucks estimated to achieve the projected fill volumes ranges from 8-17 trucks per hour over a period of some 207 days (Exhibit 14).
The experts agree that 'there is no geotechnical reason why the proposed development cannot go ahead' (Exhibit 8).
I accept and adopt the submissions of Mr Hemmings at [173] - [174] that in the event that additional geotechnical testing demonstrates that surcharge loading is required, and the additional 12-16 weeks of fill placement and associated truck movements was to apply, the additional amenity impacts that arise would not warrant the refusal of the application.
I accept the agreement of the experts that such further testing is appropriate to occur, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. At Annexure A of the joint report of Dr Martens and Dr Shaw, they have prepared the following agreed consent conditions detailing their agreement as to the further testing requirements: (Exhibit 8): "1. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, an amended geotechnical investigation and design report is to be prepared which is to include the following at a minimum: a. At least 3 supplementary cone penetration tests (CPT) or boreholes taken to refusal in very stiff to hard clayey soils. The CPT tests should be taken to a minimum depth of 35 m or to prior refusal. The testing should be undertaken in areas where filling exceeds 3.0 m in height above the natural surface. If considered appropriate, samples should be recovered and laboratory testing carried out to assess the consolidation parameters for the various foundation materials. b. A revised settlement analysis which is to: i. Assess the final approved form of earthworks. ii. Include a minimum of three transects through the fill pad area. iii. Include the design building loads. iv. Utilise all available CPT and borehole test data, including the supplementary testing. v. Confirm the expected time required for fill settlement prior commencement of construction. vi. Confirm expected long-term differential settlements are acceptable for the proposed structures, or alternatively, provide design recommendations (such as surcharging) to reduce long-term differential settlement to acceptable levels. c. Recommendations, where necessary, for any construction sequencing including how and where fill is to be placed within the fill pad area to ensure the most efficient settlement timing. For example, if surcharging is required, it may be possible to sequence the fill placement to reduce the volume of additional soil imported to the site. d. A settlement monitoring plan that ensures design settlement estimates have been reached, the rate of settlement across the fill pad has reached an acceptable level and that predicted long-term differential settlements are acceptable for the proposed structures. e. Compaction specifications, supervision, testing and monitoring during construction. f. A vibration management plan, including vibration monitoring requirements during construction that ensures that ground vibrations are kept to < 10 mm/s at any existing structures. 2. Prior to the commencement of construction of dwellings and services, a geotechnical engineer is to provide certification for the following: a. That settlement monitoring has been undertaken in accordance with the amended geotechnical investigation and design report. b. That settlement has reached an acceptable level to permit construction of structures and services. c. That future long-term differential settlements are acceptable for the proposed structures. d. That vibration monitoring has been undertaken in accordance with the amended geotechnical investigation and design report, and that ground vibrations at any existing structure did not exceed 10 mm/s." (Exhibit 8)
I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the preceding condition to be included in any consent for the proposed development (I note it is included in both Exhibits KK and 22).
Subject to the imposition of this condition, I am satisfied that there are no geotechnical matters that would warrant the refusal of the application.

[26]

Direct Impacts

The Aboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Tree Wise Men for the proposed development (Exhibit JJ) identifies the following:

81 individual trees were numbered and assessment within and adjacent to the earthworks boundary. 66 of the 81 numbered trees can be retained, subject to the implementation of tree sensitive construction methods.
Other trees on the subject property are to be retained subject to APZ and VMP considerations.
Based on the civil drawing prepared by Martens and Associates, 15 trees require removal due to construction impacts.
Further tree removal is required beyond the bounds of the earthworks, but within the APZ for bushfire purposes.
Some regrowth trees located beyond the APZ boundary but within the subject site may be necessary to satisfy ecological requirements. (Exhibit JJ)

The tree retention requirements are detailed at section 4.3 of the Aboricultural Impact Assessment Report and are captured in the agreed conditions under the heading 'Aboricultural Requirements' at Conditions 50-54 (refer Annexure A).
The aboricultural experts prepared a joint report for the Court (Exhibit 18). From my reading of their report they note their agreement to the following:

The upgrade works noted in the design drawings of Martens and Associates will be unlikely to lead to tree death for trees proximate to the works,
The installation of the proposed footpath in North Creek Road is above ground and within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of tree 70 and 73. The detailed design will require aboricultural input and should consider utilising isolated piers and a suspended structure.
The proposed acoustic barrier should be designed and constructed on "isolated posts with flexible spacing to allow for tree roots" and "the alignment of the barriers (are) to be designed to minimise crown pruning" (Exhibit 18).
Any footing structure adjacent tree 23 (within the TPZ) is to be constructed without a strip footing.
Fill batters are to be amended to be outside the TPZ of trees 30, 33, 34, 43, 27 and 28.
The detailed design of Road 1 is to relocate the sewer main to the centre of the road to be beyond the TPZs of trees 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 and 23. Any construction or haulage road in this location is to be constructed above grade with consideration of compaction and tree canopies.

There are no matters in dispute between the arboricultural experts.
The joint report of the ecologists discusses the second area of direct impact arising from the proposed development: the two copses of vegetation within the area of the site nominated for the proposed development. The ecologists note that these vegetation patches were previously offsets for the existing Seniors Housing Development.
The ecology experts differ as to what the appropriate offsetting rates is as as compensation for the removal of these two copses. The differing expert evidence is as follows:

Dr Robertson's evidence is that "the two copses of trees in question should be offset at an additional rate to that calculated by the BDAR and BAM [Biodiversity Assessment Methodology] calculations as the copses are already offsets". He notes that the vegetation contained in the copses is in poor condition and fragmented. He concludes that the offset rate should be doubled and that the area to the north of the development site could utilised to supply the offsets (Exhibit 9).
Mr Howland raises concern about the potential for natural revegetation to be hampered by invasive non-endemic species. He suggests that some active intervention may be required. He expresses no view as to the appropriate offset rate.
Dr McDonald notes that the restoration of the two copses in question is an outstanding obligation from the previous development consent. He notes that determination of the appropriate offset needs to be resolved prior to determination of the application.
(Exhibit 9)

The BDAR (Exhibit GG) concludes that the removal of native vegetation requires a total of 35 ecosystem credits to offset 1.16ha of Swamp Oak Swamp Forrest (PCT 1235) and 0.05Ha of Paperbark Swamp Forrest (PCT 1064). The biodiversity risk weighting in the assessment is allocated a value of 2 in reflection of Dr Robertson's evidence at [190].
Further, the BDAR allocated a total of 326 species credits on the following reasoning: "No threatened flora was recorded within the subject land and none are considered likely to occur. Similarly, no candidate fauna species credit species were identified during habitat assessments, however, in the absence of fauna surveys conducted using appropriate methods, the predicted species credit species have been assumed present. Therefore, potential impacts to the habitat of the threatened species identified in this assessment (Table 5.2) will need to be offset with species credits. The assessment indicates that the potential impacts on 10 species require a total of 326 species credits." (Exhibit GG)
Mr Hemmings submits that the Court would accept that the removal of the two copses in light of the following circumstances: "- the ability to provide offsets; - the fact that no expert suggests that there is any inherent necessity to retain those two copses; - the site compatibility certificate clearly anticipated the potential removal of those two copses; - they sit in the middle of the Strategic Urban Growth Area; and - Council's strategic planning assumes the site will be filled, which would result in the removal of the two copses." (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 31)
Mr Hemmings concludes that there are no direct ecological or arboricultural impacts that would warrant the refusal of the application.
Ms Reid's submissions conclude that the biodiversity offsets (at s 6.4(1) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act) for impacts on biodiversity values only apply after steps are taken to avoid or minimise the impacts, which has not been the approach of the Applicant (Tcpt, 20 August 2019, p 323(45)).

[27]

Indirect Impacts

The first category of indirect impacts identified by the ecology experts arises from the potential for changes to stormwater quality and quantity. The ecology experts agree in their joint report that the potential hydrological change that could occur following development constitutes the major potential impact of the proposed development (Exhibit 9). The experts identify that those hydrological impacts could affect: coastal wetlands; endangered ecological communities (EECs), fish habitat and oyster aquaculture (Exhibit 9).
In forming their conclusions of the potential indirect impacts of the proposed development, the ecology experts rely on the evidence and conclusions of the hydrology experts as to whether there will be a change to the hydrological regime. This is clear from their evidence in the joint report. "DR: I have reviewed the stormwater management plan by Martens and Associates (June 2019) and hydrological JE report, and discussed the pre and post development hydrological conditions with Dr Martens. I am satisfied that water quality will not be adversely impacted such that the Coastal Wetlands adjoining the subject site will be impacted. As demonstrated by the aforementioned reports, the quantity of water run-off being received by the adjoining unnamed creek to the west, and coastal wetlands to the north, south and east will be largely unchanged from current conditions. The quality of water entering these receiving waterways will be at least as good as, or improved, from current conditions. Therefore, I am satisfied that the function of the Coastal Wetlands will be protected and development within a portion of the 'Proximity Area' can occur without adverse impacts, as per the intention of the SEPP. MR: I note in the Joint Report of the Hydrologists that there is some degree of disagreement on whether the hydrological impacts will 'probably' be able to not 'significantly' impact the hydrology of Coastal Wetlands. As hydrology is a key consideration in determining the impact on these wetlands, I believe there is not sufficient definition, quantitative assessment or certainty from the hydrological assessment to enable a fully-informed ecological assessment. DM: On page 3 of the Joint Hydrology Report Dr Trevor Johnson states: "While the proposed bioretention systems can be shown to easily cope with average conditions (ie. the basins are large enough to capture the average daily rainfall), it is not clear to TJ that the basins are sized adequately to capture and infiltrate the same depth of time-varying rainfall as occurs in the existing case. Any additional stormwater runoff which occurs from the post development site is water lost to the ground water system' I have spoken to Dr Trevor Johnson and he believes that Dr Martens has not yet disproved the potential for the proposed stormwater system to inundate the EEC saltmarsh with additional volumes of fresh water. Additionally, neither of the hydrologists has mentioned the saltmarsh on site near North Creek Road in their joint report. Thus they were unable to consider the hydrological impacts on this area of EEC and Type 1- Highly Sensitive key fish habitat." (Exhibit 9)

[28]

Water quality impacts on sustainable aquaculture:

The experts agree that the creek bordering the western side of the development discharges in close proximity to a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area (Exhibit GG).
Further, they agree that the potential mechanisms for water quality impact due to the development may include:

exposure of unconsolidated material,
exposure of acid sulfate soils,
changes in salinity,
dissolved oxygen depletion, and
introduction of toxic metals or particulates.

The ecologist's evidence in relation to this matter reflects the difference of opinion between the hydrologists on the correct 'node' to be utilised in the MUSIC model to reflect the existing site condition.
On the basis of the concerns raised by Mr Johnson about the hydorological modelling, Dr McDonald's evidence is that there is uncertainty as to whether environmental impacts will arise as a result of changes to ground water or that post development flows to the Western Creek will be altered and impact the downstream ecosystem.
In addition to this Mr Howland expresses the following opinion: "MH- MUSIC modelling as presented with the June 2019 stormwater report does not sufficiently evaluation water risks against all the applicable parameters and does not recognise the potential mechanisms by which impacts of water quality can occur. … I also note that a mean TSS [Total suspended solids] concentration of 9.12mg/L is predicted, however it is not clear whether the development will comply with the 75mg/L OISAS guideline at all times. With respect to other parameters, on-site monitoring of water quality over a range of hydrological conditions at a number of sites within the project area should be used to verify the appropriate reference condition. It should be noted that the inclusion of pH, aluminium and iron in the OSIAS guidelines is recognition of the risks posed by acid sulfate soils, and hence evaluation of hydrological impacts on potential acid sulfate soils and monosulfidic black ooze is more appropriate than reference to on-site pollutant generating sources. I have concluded that there is not sufficient information for me to determine whether there is an acceptable water quality risk to aquatic ecology or oyster aquaculture." (Exhibit 9)

[30]

Saltmarsh (Coastal Saltmarsh EEC)

The experts disagree about the extent of the saltmarsh community (Coastal Saltmarsh EEC) present on the site, and whether it is likely to be impacted by the development. This issue was the subject of a supplementary joint report, Exhibit 21.
The relevant are of the site is at its southern most extent in proximity to North Creek Road. The delineation of the relevant plant communities is mapped in Exhibit LL.
The key difference between the experts is whether coastal saltmarsh is capable of being classified as the EEC includes areas where canopy trees are present.
Dr Robertson's evidence is that whilst there are variable definitions of the saltmarsh EEC, overwhelmingly they indicate it is not dominated by forest trees. He concludes that where a well-developed tree canopy occurs (such as in this case) it is not appropriate to map the vegetation as Coastal Saltmarsh EEC. It is Dr Robertson's evidence that the appropriate classification for the area of the site in dispute is Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest.
In response to Mr Howland's evidence that the community could be an 'ecotone', Dr Robertson states: "… an ecotone is an intermediate community derived from two adjacent communities. I note that in the case of the additional saltmarsh mapped in the McDonald Saltmarsh Report, there is no saltmarsh adjacent to the Swamp Oak Forrest. Rather, the vegetation along the creek is predominately forest. It is not an ecotone in my view" (Exhibit LL).
In the alternative, Dr McDonald argues that the estimation of the area of Coastal Saltmarsh EEC provided by Dr Robertson does not represent all of the community present on the subject site. He supports his opinion that the Coastal Saltmarsh EEC can include trees by reference to: documents referred to in the final determination of the NSW Scientific Community for the listing of Coastal Saltmarsh EEC; the Commonwealth definition of Coastal Saltmarsh EEC; and the definition of saltmarsh under the Fisheries Management Regulation 2010.
Applying this broader definition, Dr McDonald provides an estimate of 0.375ha of Coastal Saltmarsh EEC adjacent the southern section of the Western CreekCreek in proximity to North Creek Road. The difference between the extents of Coastal Saltmarsh EEC identified by Dr Robertson and Dr McDonald are detailed at Figure 1 of Exhibit 11.
Mr Howland concludes that 'the amalgamation of the DR and DM Coastal Saltmarsh mapping would provide a good approximation of the overall saltmarsh extent and therefore a good basis for management decisions" (Exhibit LL). He argues that importantly a patch of saltmarsh (as defined by the Fisheries Management Regulation 2010) as small as 5sqm is recognised as Type 1 Key Fish Habitat. He repeats his concerns that changes to water quality or quantity has potential for detrimental impacts on these habitats.
Mr Howland also argues that the Applicant has failed to assess the aquatic functioning of the Western Creek, the species present and whether the proposed development will impact them (Exhibit 9).

[31]

The adequacy of the Applicants proposed Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)

The Applicant has prepared a VMP for the proposed development to describe the management measures that would be implemented if the proposed development was to be granted consent by the Court.
The Council argues that the VMP is inadequate and seeks to cure this inadequacy through the imposition of a deferred commencement condition. That condition is extracted below: "Vegetation Management Plan 1. The submitted Vegetation Management Plan (VMP), as prepared by Cumberland Ecology, Dated 7 June 2019 is amended, to ensure the development protects downstream aquatic ecosystems. The VMP is to be amended to ensure where the development adjoins the creek (refer Zone 2 of the VMP), it achieves, on average, a fully vegetated riparian buffer with a minimum width of 20 metres. The 20 metre buffer is to be measured from surveyed level of the top of each bank as described in document titled "Guidelines for controlled activities on waterfront land - Riparian corridors" produced by the NSW Department of Industry and dated May 2018. The revised VMP is also required to address the following matters: i. Section 1.1 is to be amended to confirm that the Developer is responsible for all costs and the implementation of the VMP. ii. Include detailed vegetation mapping of Zones 2 and 5 (of the VMP), so that suitably qualified bushfire and mosquito experts can undertake risk assessments of those zones relative to their area of expertise, iii. Based on the mapping in point ii., a suitably qualified bushfire consultant is to assess the bushfire risk of Zones 2 and 5 for all existing dwellings (via DA 2004/328) and proposed dwellings (via DA 2018/321). The bushfire threat assessment is to: (a) Be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire, 2006. (b) Include a range of bushfire solutions that are to be implemented to minimise vegetation loss and to ensure riparian buffers are maximised. (c) Clearly identify on a map all vegetation required to be removed to comply with the abovementioned legislation. (d) Assess the need to remove vegetation growing within Zone 5. (e) Demonstrate that NSW Rural Fire Service have been consulted during the preparation of the revised VMP (f) Be certified by the Applicant's bushfire consultant as being compliant with the requirements of Planning For Bushfire 2006 iv. Based on the mapping in point ii, a suitably qualified mosquito consultant is to: a) Assess the mosquito risk of Zones 2 and 5 for all existing dwellings (via DA 2004/328) and proposed dwellings (via DA 2018/321). b) Clearly identify on a map all vegetation required to be removed to minimise mosquito breeding and harbourage. v. Provide additional onsite offsetting for the loss two vegetation corpses required for retention under DA 2004/328. Offset ratios for the loss of the subject vegetation is a ratio 3 to 1 (that is 3m2 of planting is required for every 1m2 of vegetation loss). The offset ratios are to be derived from Table 4.1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) prepared by Cumberland Ecology and dated 11 June 2019. Existing vegetation communities cannot be used to be satisfy this offsetting requirement. vi. Identify, on a suitably scaled map, all vegetation to be removed to ensure current hydrological flows are improved and or maintained. vii. Include precise details on the method of any proposed vegetation removal to comply with the abovementioned bushfire, mosquito and hydrological investigations and assess the environmental risk of undertaking those works, viii. Identify how these areas will be maintained in perpetuity, ix. Revise the objectives within the VMP to clearly identify maintenance of the mosquito buffer to minimise vegetation providing mosquito habitat. x.Include specific plant species/sittings/densities proposed in the APZ/mosquito buffer, which are to be certified by a suitably qualified entomologist and bushfire consultant, xi. Include a vegetation maintenance plan to ensure vegetation in the APZ/mosquito buffer and bio filtration basins can be managed in a way to minimise vegetation providing mosquito habitat, which is to be certified by a suitably qualified entomologist, xii. Ensure that the VMP is technically correct when addressing mosquito habitat management; xiii. Section 6 is to be updated to confirm that all planting works will be undertaken at the commencement of the restoration program, xiv. Include additional vegetation mapping for Zones 1-5 which clearly identify, within each Zone, the Plant Community Type/s (PCT/s). xv. The Performance Indicators contained in Table 7.1 are to be revised to reflect the outcomes of the above bushfire, mosquito and hydrological investigations. However, all forested PCTs are to achieve a minimum native plant coverage of 90% for all vegetation strata's, xvi. Section 7 of the VMP is to be updated to state that if the revised Performance Indicators are not achieved within the five year timeframe, the restoration program will be extended until they are achieved, xvii. The timing and responsibilities contained in Table 8.1 are to be revised to reflect the outcomes of the above bushfire, mosquito and hydrological investigations. The revised Vegetation Management Plan is required to be submitted to and approved by Council." (Exhibit 12)
The VMP replaces the CVMP that was prepared in 2008 and was approved as part of DA/2004/328 which granted consent to the existing Seniors Housing Development.
It is acknowledged by the parties that the existing site management, in particular in the state of the Western Creek, is not in conformance with the CVMP.
Ms Reid argues that the VMP provides insufficient detail and clarity about the works required to be undertaken to implement the VMP. In particular, she argues that the extent of works required in the riparian buffer zones is unclear, or not defined by the VMP.
Further, she argues that the evidence of the various experts support the amendments to the VMP sought by the deferred commencement condition.
Mr Hemmings does not accept that the deferred commencement condition at [215] is warranted on the following grounds:

the amendments to the VMP sought are not supported by the evidence before the Court,
the VMP is intended to be a living document that is in place during the life of the development. As such it sets objectives and performance measures, for example planting densities, which are to be achieved and maintained. This approach is taken rather than identifying specific trees to be removed, which will only apply at the commencement of the development,
the scope of changes sought by the proposed deferred commencement conditions are a 'wholesale amendment to the current regime' and ignore the operation of the consent for the existing seniors housing developemnt, and
the condition is uncertain and does not reflect the development for which consent is sought.

Mr Hemmings concludes that if the Court form the view that consent for the development is warranted the deferred commencement condition seeking amendments to the VMP should not be imposed.

[33]

Findings

I note that the Applicant has prepared an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan (Exhibit C). Clause 7.1(3) of LEP 2012 states: … consent must not be granted under this clause for carrying out of works unless an acid sulfate soils management plan has been prepared for the proposed works in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and has been provided to the consent authority.
I am satisfied this precondition is met. Further, the proposed conditions of consent include the requirement to update the plan prior to the commencement of work. The updated plan is to include a determination of whether monosulfidic black ooze is present in the Western Creek and determine appropriate management measures relevant to the proposed development if it occurs. I am satisfied this condition is appropriate and will provide further controls on the management of acid sulfate soils on the site if required.
I accept the joint agreement of the arboricultural experts that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to manage the risks they identify at [187], the direct impacts to existing trees arising from the proposed development are acceptable. These matters are addressed by proposed Conditions 53 and 54 (Annexure 1).
I accept the evidence of Dr McDonald that the offsetting rate for the removal of the two copses on the subject site should reflect that this vegetation was utilised as an offset in the grant of consent for the existing seniors housing development. On review of the BDAR prepared by the Applicant, I am satisfied that the adopted biodiversity risk weighting of 2 is sufficient to offset the impacts of the proposed development and address the 'credit' from the previous consent.
I note Mr Howland's evidence that revegetation may be hampered by invasive non-endemic species. I am satisfied that this initial risk is addressed by the VMP. However, I acknowledge that there is an ongoing risk of non-compliance with the obligations of the VMP during the ongoing operation of the development beyond construction and establishment. I find it is appropriate to include the following condition on the consent for the development to mitigate this risk: "Ongoing VMP monitoring In accordance with the VMP prepared by Cumberland Ecology for 120 North Creek Road the operator of the development is to ensure a qualified bushland management or ecological consultant: - carries out the program of regular monitoring detailed in 7.1 of the VMP. - assesses the performance of the site against the performance criteria listed in Table 7.1 of the VMP; and - prepares an annual report to be submitted to council in accordance with 7.2 of the VMP."
In relation to the issue of indirect impacts, I reiterate my findings at [153]-[162].
I am satisfied that there is no evidence before the Court that demonstrates that there is a likely detrimental ecological impact arising from the development, other than that which may occur as a result of a change in hydrology.
Further to my findings in relation to the Hydrology evidence, I accept the submission of Mr Hemmings that these indirect impacts do not arise.
Further, I accept his submission that it is not necessary to determine the extent of the Coastal Saltmarsh EEC from the evidence of the ecology experts. Nonetheless, in brief, I prefer the evidence of Dr Robertson on the basis that: the Biodiversity Conservation Act defines 'Coastal Saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East corner Bioregions' by reference to the final determination of the Scientific Committee. I am satisfied that this determination is consistent with the evidence of Dr Robertson. There is no evidence before the Court that demonstrates that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on an EEC.
However, the ecological experts note and agree the ecological sensitivity of the environment downstream of the site. I also note the presence of a priority oyster aquaculture area in the vicinity of the site. Further, I am cognisant that the form of development itself has the potential to mobilise sediment. On the preceding basis, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for a water quality monitoring regime to be implemented prior, during and after the construction of the proposed development to ensure that the modelling outcomes are achieved. To effect this, the following condition is imposed on the consent: "Prior to the commencement of work: A water monitoring regime for Western Creek and for the wetlands in proximity to the discharge location on North Creek Road is to be prepared. The water monitoring regime is to include, at a minimum, the ability to monitor TSS, changes in salinity, dissolved oxygen levels, the presence of particulates and toxic metals. The water monitoring program design should be informed by the OISAS guidelines. The draft water monitoring program design should be peer reviewed prior to lodgement with Council for approval. Once approved the monitoring regime is to be implemented for the life of the proposed development with results provided to Council on a yearly basis."
On this basis I am satisfied that there are no detrimental downstream impacts on ecology that warrant the refusal of the development application.
The final issue in dispute between the ecologists is the VMP. The deferred commencement condition sought to be imposed by the Council seeks to revisit many of the issues in contention in the proceedings. As I found at [119], the requirement to obtain a new BFSA as part of the proposed condition, as well as increase the offset ratio for the two copses proposed to be removed result in the outcome of the proposed condition being uncertain. I am not persuaded on my assessment of the application that there are matters arising under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act that would warrant the imposition of the condition sought by the Council.
I accept and adopt the submissions of Mr Hemmings at [220].

[34]

Acoustic Impacts

The potential acoustic impacts arising from the proposed development are as a result of increased traffic movements from the new intersection with North Creek Road that will provide access to the proposed development. That access way is located between two neighbouring residential receivers: 176 and 184 North Creek Road.
The Applicant relies on an acoustic report prepared by Tumney Consulting in June 2019, Exhibit B. This report is accepted by the Council and Mr Tumney was not required for cross-examination.
The acoustic report concludes: "Overall it is my professional opinion that provided suitable noise barriers are constructed along the property boundaries (there) is no significant risk to the Acoustic Amenity of the adjacent rural properties as a result of this development" (Exhibit B).
The Applicant proposes a 2m high acoustic fence. The acoustic report provides the following specification: "An effective acoustic barrier may be constructed from any of the following materials:- • Lapped and capped timber paling with minimum 18mm boards on minimum three 90mm x 45 mm rails spaced not more than 600 mm apart. All timber to be minimum H4 rated. Timber palings to extend to within 20mm of the ground at all points, if necessary provide concrete hob or equivalent to ensure ground clearance is maintained. Brick or Masonry (including AAC (Hebel) panels or blocks) minimum 70mm thick, Fibre Cement sheeting (Blue Board) minimum 7 mm thick installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions with maximum ground clearance of 20mm at all points. Other materials as approved by a qualified Acoustic Consultant. NB Colorbond steel is NOT a preferred material as it tends to be readily damaged and its acoustic integrity compromised." (Exhibit B)
The parties note that the nominated acoustic barrier should be designed and constructed to avoid impacts to Trees 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. To effect both the construction of the fence and the management of tree impacts, the agreed conditions are as follows: "Aboriculture Requirements: … 53. Detailed plans and Construction Certificate drawings that demonstrate that the trees on the development site and adjoining properties, which have been identified to be retained (in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment report, prepared by Tree Wise Men, Dated 9 July 2019), are to be reviewed by the project arborist. The project arborist is required to issue an update to the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by Tree Wise Men, Dated 9 July 2019, as an Exploratory Measure Report. This report is to be prepared in accordance with AS 4970-2009 'Protection of trees on development sites', is to be specific to the development site (with no reference to external roads) and is to specifically address the following: … (b) The 2.0 metre high acoustic barrier is to be constructed so that it does not affect any trees, including Trees 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. The updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment must investigate and nominate the design of the barrier within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), including: ▪ isolating posts or suspending structure, to avoid damaging roots; ▪ the alignment of the acoustic barrier to avoid pruning tree canopy; and ▪ nominate whether pruning to the crown is required and obtain the consent of the property owner (where required). All crown pruning works are to be undertaken in accordance with AS 4373-2007 "Pruning of Amenity Trees". Acoustic Barrier: 61. A detailed design of the acoustic barrier, which is to be erected adjacent to the property boundaries of the development site and No. 174 North Creek Road and No. 186 North Creek Road, in order to provide acoustic attenuation from the proposed development, is to be prepared in consultation with the adjoining property owners. The design plans must be prepared with reference to the requirements of condition 53 and is to be certified by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant as compliant with the Acoustic Report, prepared by Tumney Consulting Acoustic Consultants, dated 17 June 2019. The barrier is required to be solely located on the development site, such that the fence is able to be solely maintained by the developer and not become the responsibility of an adjoining property owners. The acoustic barrier must be designed in consultation with a registered certified practicing Engineer and must be certified by the Engineer that it will withstand all flows, scouring and debris loadings for all flood events and up to including the 1% AEP event. Detailed design plans are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate for the development or the commencement of works, whichever occurs first." (Exhibits 12, KK)

[35]

Findings

The Acoustic report concludes that with construction of a 2m high acoustic fence, erected in accordance with the specification detailed at [243], the development will conform to the requirements of the NSW Noise Policy. Objectively it is possible to conclude therefore that the impacts are acceptable.
However, I note the submissions of the residents in relation to the impact of the noise arising from the development given their current 'rural' setting, the visual impact of the acoustic wall itself, and the impact of the duration of construction.
Having given consideration to these concerns I am remain satisfied that the acoustic impacts of the proposed development are reasonable. My reasoning is as follows: 1. the subject site, and the adjoining land, is identified as site is mapped on the Strategic Growth Areas Map under LEP 2012. 2. the construction impacts, including frequent truck movements over the extent of a work day, are of a reasonably short duration and will occur after the construction of the acoustic fence which will limit the intrusion of noise. 3. the operational traffic volumes on an ongoing basis will be of less intensity and within the design criteria for the road. 4. North Creek Road itself is forecast by Council not only for road upgrade through the contributions plan, but increasing volumes of traffic in response to the development of the Strategic Growth Areas.
Notwithstanding the above, I am persuaded that it is reasonable for the final design of the acoustic barrier to be integrated with the landscape design detailed in Exhibit X such that the development provides the proposed plantings of Glochldlon ferdlnandl (cheese tree) between the acoustic barrier and the common boundary of the affected properties (176 and 184 North Creek Road). I am satisfied this will assist in screening the acoustic barriers and reduce their visual impact.
As such, the following updated conditions should be imposed on any consent, addition shown in bold: "Acoustic Barrier: 61. A detailed design of the acoustic barrier, which is to be erected adjacent to the property boundaries of the development site and No. 174 North Creek Road and No. 186 North Creek Road, in order to provide acoustic attenuation from the proposed development, is to be prepared in consultation with the adjoining property owners. The design plans must be prepared with reference to the requirements of condition 53 and is to be certified by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant as compliant with the Acoustic Report, prepared by Tumney Consulting Acoustic Consultants, dated 17 June 2019. The barrier is required to be solely located on the development site, such that the fence is able to be solely maintained by the developer and not become the responsibility of an adjoining property owners. The alignment of the barrier is to accommodate the planting of Glochldlon ferdlnandl, as detailed on the landscape plan for Area B prepared by Site Design Studios number L-04, between the barrier at the common boundary of the subject sit and both 176 and 184 North Creek Road. The intent of the planting is to screen the barrier when viewed from both 176 and 184 North Creek Road. The acoustic barrier must be designed in consultation with a registered certified practicing Engineer and must be certified by the Engineer that it will withstand all flows, scouring and debris loadings for all flood events and up to including the 1% AEP event. Detailed design plans are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate for the development or the commencement of works, whichever occurs first."
The condition detailed at [244] should also be imposed to limit the impact of the proposed development on existing trees.

[37]

BUPA Access Road

During the proceedings, reference was made to the 'BUPA access road'. This is an existing internal road within the adjoining aged care village, named Forrest Oak Boulevarde.
Its relevance to the current development is that Stage 1 of the proposed development includes the construction of a bridge that will provide an internal connection between the proposed development, the BUPA access way and the existing Seniors Housing Development.
The emergency egress points for the proposed development will be from this internal street linkage (and ultimately egressing to Corks Lane or North Creek Road) and from a new access point of North Creek Road further to the east.
Mr Healy argues that emergency access is impeded by the ongoing on street parking of vehicles on the BUPA access road which reduces the effective width of the road. His evidence, in part, is as follows: "It is clearly evidence from my inspections of the site and recognised in the traffic reports lodged with the development application that usage of the existing BUPA Access Road (Forrest Oak Boulevarde) is significantly constrained by the presence of existing overflow parking on street. This car parking impacts the ability for this access route to be safely utilised by the subject development for regular access, or in the case of emergency evacuation." (Exhibit 11)
In his oral evidence, Mr Healy accepted that even with vehicles parked on the BUPA access way emergency vehicles are: able to safely utilise the road; and during normal circumstances two vehicles can safely pass.
Mr Healy argues that the provision of parking for BUPA staff should be effected by any consent for the proposed development.
In the alternative, Mr Kleimeyer argues this issue has been appropriately addressed by the Applicant. He argues:

the amended application no longer relies on the BUPA access road as its primary access;
the BUPA access road has sufficient capacity for the proposed development; and
the Applicant and BUPA are well progressed towards providing additional car parking for BUPA staff but such a requirement is not reasonably linked to the proposed development.

Further, Mr Kleimeyer notes that the Traffic Impact Assessment (Exhibit Z) identifies that the BUPA access road has an environmental capacity of 2,000 vehicles per day. The assessment of the proposed development indicates that the current usage of 531 vehicles/day will be increased by 26 vehicles/ day as a result of the development, well within the capacity of the road.

[39]

Intersection Design, Road works to North Creek Road

Mr Healy is of the opinion that the proposed access arrangements for the development are unsuitable for the following reasons: 1. the new access point at North Creek Road will have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the two residents who are located adjacent the proposed access way due to the very significant number of truck movements during construction. 2. it is unclear how operational and construction traffic will be safely managed. 3. the upgrade of North Creek Road, east of the BUPA access road is necessary to provide for safe and efficient traffic movement to and from the proposed development. 4. the current intersection design for the new access to North Creek Road is deficient in that: "(a) it has not demonstrated that adequate sight distances to provide safe operations can be provided either for the interim or ultimate (with North Creek Road upgrade) access intersection. Specifically, the design does not provide for accept SISD (Safe intersection sight distance) which is a requirement to allow a vehicle on the main line to identify and stop prior to a conflicting side street movement (allowing sufficient distance for observation, reaction and stopping time); (b) there is insufficient certainty that the road works proposed on North Creek Road and the proposed new development access can be constructed given that the works will require construction within the coastal wetlands area, as identified by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018)" (Exhibit 11)
Finally, the experts disagree as to the primacy of the application of the Austroads Guide to Road Design, or the Australian Standard AS2890.1 2004 to the intersection and the resultant Safe Intersection Stopping Distance (SISD).
Mr Healy argues that the relevant standard is the Austroad Guide to Road Design and that the required distance from the proposed intersection is 107m applying the standard.
Mr Kleinmeyer argues that the 2.5m by 86m visibility sight line shown on the development plans is in accordance with the Australian Standard AS2898.1 2004. He argues that this distance is sufficient on the following grounds: 1. the intersection design complies with the SISD for a 60km road (being 10km in excess of the posted 50km speed limit) when the Australian Standard is applied, 2. intersection design for the new access point complies with the design speed of 60km/hr for vehicles when applying the Austroads Guide to Road Design, 3. The SISD for trucks at 60km/hr under Austroads Guide to Road Design is 107m. It is appropriate for the guideline to be varied in this instance as: 1. North Creek Road is a dead end. To the extent there would be any trucks proceeding past the new access point, they are likely to be trucks familiar with the road and the presence of the access point. 2. the remaining trucks would be utilising the access way and will be slowing to turn into it.
In his oral evidence, Mr Healy noted he did not agree with the application of the shorter sight distance in the Australian Standard AS2890.1 2004, but he conceded that due to the low volumes of traffic in North Creek Road and the fact that it is a no through road the proposed sight distances were acceptable, but not optimum.
In relation to the standard to which the new access way is designed, Mr Kleinmeyer argues that it is designed to accommodate the current road configuration. It is his evidence that the future upgraded road envisaged by the Contributions Plan is uncertain and there is inadequate information surrounding the possible road alignment and its civil design to allow an intersection to be designed to reflect the future road.
Mr Healy notes that Ballina Shire Council has committed to extending North Creek Road to provide a new strategic road link to Skennars Head including the bridging of North Creek. The Ballina Shire Contributions Plan (contributions plan) allocates works for this project with a scheduled construction time period of between 2019 and 2028 (Exhibit 11).
Mr Healy concludes that in his opinion: "it should be a requirement for any new development access proposed on North Creek Road to ensure that the existing and future function, safety and operation of North Creek Road is not prejudiced" (Exhibit 11).
The experts agree that the proposed development requires road works to North Creek Road as follows:

Increase pavement width to 7m;
Construct a pathway of 2m width to the northern side of North Creek Road;
Road standard to comply with the Northern Rivers Road Geometric Road Design; and
Lighting on the southern side of North Creek Road.

The upgrade works to North Creek Road do not form part of this development application.
It is Ms McCabe's evidence that the information provided by the Applicant in relation to the upgrade works required to North Creek Road as a result of the proposed development is insufficient and 'does not allow for an informed assessment of the environmental impacts of the road' (Exhibit 3). Ms McCabe argues that a greater level of detail than has been provided by the Applicant is warranted on the following grounds: "134. The Applicant's traffic report identifies the need to upgrade North Creek Road to a suitable standard to accommodate the traffic needs of the development. 135. The application says that North Creek Road will be undertaken as part of Stage 1 of the development. 136. The joint report of the traffic consultants does not agree with the extent of works required to be undertaken to North Creek Road. … The land is: - zoned RU2 Rural Landscape; - Identified as within a Flood Planning Area under the BLEP 2012; - Included on the Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Map, Coastal Environmenal Area Map and Coastal Use Area Map under SEPP (CM) 2018; - Wholly within the proximity area for coastal wetland; - The northern side of the road abuts areas nominated as coastal wetlands; - In proximity to important Fish Habitats and Oyster Aquaculture Areas; - Both sides of the road contain vegetation, some of which is ecologically significant; and - in proxoimity to Aboriginal archaeology." (Exhibit 3)
Ms McCabe concludes that: "146. The assessment of these cannot be undertaken at this stage and I am of the view that the Court could not be satisfied as to the actual impacts, potential mitigation and the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed works. 147. There is insufficient information to consider what is a fundamental aspect of this applicaton, the impacts of which cannot be left for another day." (Exhibit 3)
In the alternative, Mr Mead argues: "… the proposal does not seek consent for the works in the North Creek Road reserve, whether that work would be designated development is not of relevance to determination of the subject application. The fact is that irrespective of the approvals pathway, an approval will be required for the road works and that approval will require environmental assessment. … That is, if that future application cannot demonstrate satisfactory environmental impacts, the development as proposed could not proceed. … The agreed deferred commencement condition required the submission and approval and of an application of these works prior to an operational consent. … Whilst not seeking approval for the works, the application includes details of the likely works required to enable impacts to be assessed. The plans have been considered by the various experts. Certain matters have been raised, for example the alignment of the southern edge of the road in relation to coastal wetlands and the alignment of services in relation to an Aboriginal midden, will be the subject of further detailed assessment in relation to the Section 138 approval. Further survey work would be done at that time to accurately define the location of constraints to enable a more specific response." (Exhibit 3)

[40]

Submissions

Ms Reid argues that the information provided by the Applicant in relation to the upgrade works required in North Creek Road is insufficient. She argues this on the following grounds: 1. the plans do not show the extent of works on the southern edge of the existing road which is identified as Coastal Wetlands in the Coastal SEPP; 2. the number and location of culverts is not determined; 3. the plans lack precision as to the works to be undertaken in proximity to trees on North Creek Road, or which trees will be required to be removed; 4. there is no assessment of whether the proposed pavement will comply with the Northern Rivers Geometric Road Design and whether excavation will be required for compliance; 5. whether realignment of the road will be required to separate the pedestrian footpath from the road verge; 6. how the existing properties at 174 and 186 North Creek Road will be drained due to the charge in road grade; 7. the location of services within the road reserve.
Ms Reid submits that, on the basis of the evidence of the traffic engineers and the arborists, the extent of the impacts of the works to North Creek Road is unknown. In particular she notes the evidence of Mr Howland "that there is insufficient information provided regarding the design of the road cross section and how the footprint of the works would be feasibly contained to avoid impacts on the mangroves on the southern side of North Creek Road" (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 68).
Ms Reid submits that the road access from North Creek Road is a fundamental requirement for the development, both for construction and future day to day traffic (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 69). Further, she argues that there is insufficient information for the consent authority to form an opinion as to whether the works to North Creek Road will be designated development or able to be approved through a development application or through Part 5 of EPA Act.
Ms Reid argues that: 's4.15 of the Act requires the consent authority to consider the likely impacts of a development. Notwithstanding that the Applicant does not seek consent for the road works in North Creek Road as part of this application, the consent authority is required to consider its likely impacts on the coastal wetland and EECs as they are direct and indirect impacts from the development (see Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2010] NSWLEC 242 at [14]-[25] ('Hoxton Park Residents Action Group') (undisturbed on appeal: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc. v Liverpool City Council [2011] NSWCA 349; (2011) 184 LGERA 104 at [47]-[48]); and CEAL Limited v Minister for Planning & ORs (2007) 159 LGERA 232; [2007] NSWLEC 302 at [32]-[34]) (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019 p 69)'.
In closing, Ms Reid argues that "in the absence of sufficient information to determine the direct and indirect impacts of the road works to North Creek Road the Court must refuse the development" (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 70).
In his submissions, Mr Hemmings emphasises the agreement of the traffic experts that a suitable road formation could be designed within the existing road reserve for North Creek Road to service the development.
He submits that pursuant to s 4.15 of the EPA Act, the consent authority is required to take into consideration such matters in the sub sections that are of relevance to the subject of the development application. He confirms that any future road works to North Creek Road do not form part of the development for which consent is sought, and are therefore the impacts arising from those works are not required to be assessed (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 34).
Mr Hemmings argues that the decision in Hoxton Park Residents Action Group demonstrates that, in limited circumstances, the Court is entitled to consider the likely impacts of works that are not the subject of the development application.
Mr Hemmings emphasises [44] of Hoxton Park Residents Action Group: "the impact must be one flowing from the development the subject of the Development Application: the question is how remote a 'likely' impact must be, in order to disqualify it from the scope of consideration. This requires an evaluative judgement which will often not involve any bright-line boundary."
Mr Hemmings submits that the current proceedings are distinguished from Hoxton Park Residents Action Group on broadly the following grounds: 1. the need to undertake an environmental assessment of the potential impacts of a matter that is captured in a deferred commencement condition would defeat the intent of the legislation at s 4.16(3) of the EPA Act. 2. whilst the road works in North Creek Road are likely to be carried out in North Creek Road (in fact are detailed in the deferred commencement condition), there is no certainty of impact. 3. whilst there is a possibility that works (in particular the footpath) may need to be designed appropriately to avoid an aboriginal midden and to avoid impact, the prospect of an actual impact is unknown. That is because it is likely that the road works could be designed to not have any deleterious impacts at all.
On the basis of the above reasoning, Mr Hemmings argues that the there is no likely impact flowing from the development the subject of the Development Application.
Mr Hemmings argues if a likely impact is established the impact is properly described as 'remote'. His reasoning is that: the works have not been designed and the consequences of those works are not known.
Further, Mr Hemmings relies on the approach taken by Moore J in Australian Coal Alliance Incorporated v Wyong Coal Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 31 at [123]-[125] and Pepper J in Oshlack v Rous Water (No 2) (2012) 189 LGERA 243; [2012] NSWLEC 111 at [98]-[102].

[41]

Findings

I note Mr Healy's evidence regarding the acoustic impact of additional traffic on the residents adjoining the access way. My consideration of this issue and my findings are at [247]- [250].
I note that agreed conditions include the following requirements in relation to construction traffic management: "Stage 1 - Use of Road 1 and existing Palm Lake internal road network 22. The new access to North Creek Road, i.e. Road 1, is only to be utilised for the purposes of construction access (refer to condition 59 - Construction Environmental Management Plan) and emergency evacuation until completion of Stage 1 (other than for construction of the dwellings) during which period appropriate prohibition signage for residents, pre-approved by Council, shall be erected at the entrance to Road 1. Construction Environmental Management Plan 59. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is required to be prepared. The CEMP is to include, but not be limited to, the following information: i. Quantity and source of fill; ii. Haulage route … v. Details of the length of the construction period for earthworks. For truck movements associated with the importation and exportation of fill is not permitted to occur outside the hours of 9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday, and otherwise be detailed as per the requirements of condition 116; vi. Details as to the location of the shaker pad on the entry of Road 1 connecting with North Creek Road such that it is moved adjacent to the northern boundary of Lot 2 DP 555386, No. 186 North Creek Road, and located outside the TPZ for all existing trees, as identified by the project arborist, with there to be sealing of construction roadway from the shaker pad to the roadway interface with North Creek road. vii. The hours of work; viii. Contact details of the site manager; ix. A complaint's management register; … xi. Construction traffic demands; xii. Traffic Management (Vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists); xiii. The Applicant's proposed pavement damage remediation strategy; xiv. The management of noise, dust, and vibration; xv. Dust - Air quality management plan (include escalation protocols and triggers); …" (Exhibits KK and 12)
I am satisfied that, in addition to the evidence, these conditions appropriately clarify how construction traffic is to be safely managed. Further I am satisfied that there is sufficient clarity before the Court as to the scope and duration of impacts that will arise from the construction of the development for the Court to give consideration to these impacts in the assessment of the application: Bay Simmer Investments Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2017) 222 LGERA 286 at [54]-[67].
I accept the evidence of Mr Kleinmeyer, and the concession of Mr Healy, that the SISD for the proposed intersection at North Creek Road is sufficient. I adopt Mr Kleinmeyer's reasoning at [266].
Noting the volume of construction traffic, its duration and the linkage between SSID and vehicle speed, I find it is warranted to impose the following condition to monitor truck speed approaching the turn into the subject site during the construction of the proposed development: "Variable Speed Limit Sign The Applicant is to install and operate a "Variable Speed Limit Sign" for the duration of the construction works authorised by this consent. The sign is to measure and display the actual speed of vehicles approaching the new access point into the subject site off North Creek Road. The sign is to alert drivers exceeding the posted speed limit. The VSLS is to be supplied and maintained in accordance with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) specifications."
The remaining issues between the traffic engineers and the parties can be delineated as: 1. the level of detail and certainty of those works required with this development application. 2. the standard to which the upgrade works should be designed
I note that the agreed conditions include the following as a deferred commencement condition pursuant to s 4.16(3) of the EPA Act: "Separate application for works in North Creek Road reserve 1. A separate application is to be lodged with Council for all works (civil, road and infrastructure) in the road reserve of North Creek Road, which are to support, and are associated with, the development approved via DA 2018/321. A complete environmental assessment of all works proposed in the North Creek Road reserve is to be prepared and submitted with the application. The application is to address: i. Water and sewer mains required to service the development approved via DA 2018/321, to be located in North Creek Road, and their positioning outside of the future pavement of North Creek Road. ii. The provision of a 7m wide road pavement/carriageway. iii. The provision of a concrete shared footpath/cycleway along North Creek Road, extending from Forrest Oak Boulevard to the proposed new road access location, to service the development approved via DA 2018/321, with a minimum width of 2.5 metres. The path is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14 Bicycles and Standard Drawing R-07 of Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals. iv. Where a boardwalk is required as part of the shared footpath/cycleway, in order to mitigate impacts on items of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage significance, the boardwalk is to be of a composite fibre type (Wagners product or equivalent where approved by Council). The boardwalk is to be designed to withstand all flood events up to and including a 1% AEP event and comply with AS1170, AS2156, AS1428 and AS5100. v. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, with respect to any proposed works which have the potential to impact on Aboriginal middens, in accordance with the recommendations within the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, prepared by Everick Heritage Consultants, Dated April 2019. vi. All regulatory signage proposed along North Creek Road to facilitate adequate function of the proposed intersection, which have been endorsed by the Ballina Local Traffic Committee. vii. Protection and relocation as necessary, the existing major sewer rising main infrastructure which connects Ballina to the Lennox Head Sewage Treatment Plant. viii. The design and installation of public street lighting, in accordance with AS/NZS 1158 and based on the installation of Country Energy Style 1 lanterns fitted with light emitting diode street lights for category P areas. ix. Detailed design of drainage and culvert works, including details of how the hydrological and improved fish passage objectives for the Western Creekline are to be achieved. x. Engineering design drawings are to be in accordance with the current Northern Rivers Local Government Development Design and Construction Manuals and/or in accordance with other design requirements from Austroads, Australian Standards and/or Roads & Maritime Services where specified. xi. Any requirements of NSW Rural Fire Service's "Planning for Bushfire Protection, 2006". xii. Where any regulatory signage is proposed within the public road network, endorsement has been obtained from the Local Traffic Committee. This application is to be submitted to and approved by Council. This deferred commencement consent will lapse if the above condition is not complied with within 5 years from the date of these orders and to the satisfaction of Council." (Exhibits KK and 12)
I am not persuaded that there is evidence that the road works arising from the development, or required to service it, would exceed the road reserve of North Creek Road. I am satisfied that the civil design plans prepared by the Applicant (Exhibit U) demonstrate with sufficient detail that the works are feasible. The documentation is adequate to demonstrate that the deferred commencement condition is appropriately certain.
I accept the submission of Ms Reid that road access from North Creek Road is a fundamental element of the development, but I am satisfied that no works to North Creek Road (beyond the intersection) form part of the 'proposed development' for which consent is sought. The Applicant does not proposed works to upgrade North Creek Road.
The nexus for the upgrade works to North Creek Road, agreed by the traffic consultants, is to provide safe and efficient traffic movement to and from the development.
Unlike the facts in Hoxton Park Residents Action Group, the provision of access to the proposed development is not solely provided by North Creek Road, nor predicated on the completion of those works as was the case in Hoxton Park Residents Action Group where a new bridge was required to provide access.
This reasoning is consistent with that of Moore J in Australian Coal Alliance Incorporated v Wyong Coal Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 31 at [123].
I find that the deferred commencement consent requiring the approval of the works in North Creek Road prior to the consent operating is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

[43]

Offsite flooding impacts

Mr Collins assesses the offsite flood impacts from the proposed development to be an increase in flood levels of adjoining properties of up to 50mm. He argues this level of increase is unacceptable as 'Council has consistently applied the 5cm maximum cumulative impact test on all previous development flood assessments since 2009" (Exhibit 10). Further, he argues that this maximum cumulative impact of 5cm has already been taken up (or utilised) by existing approvals within the vicinity of the site, resulting in the need for caution in relation to the flood assessment of the current application.
Mr Collins advocates that given the circumstances of the 5cm cumulative benchmark being reached, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) recommendation of a limit of 1cm for offsite impacts arising from the development should be adopted. Mr Collins refers to the correspondence of OEH dated 31.8.18 (Exhibit 2, tab B).
In proximity to the subject site, there is a development proposed nominated as 'the Southern Cross Precinct'. Dr Martens and Mr Collins disagree whether the filling and flood mitigation works associated with this development proposal should be considered in the assessment of cumulative flooding impacts. Mr Collins argues that the Southern Cross Precinct development should not be included as it has not been approved.
Mr Collins concludes that, on his assessment, the cumulative offsite flooding impacts arising from the proposed development are up to 5cm on properties beyond the subject site. He notes that this is on the limit of compliance with Council's 'benchmark' and does not comply with the recommendation of OEH.
In contrast, Dr Martens argues that Council does not have a policy document that details the range of offsite impacts that are acceptable. Without such a document, Dr Martens argues that "it is not fair or reasonable for an Applicant to review and/ or address such a policy, noting that the Applicant would be subject to whatever the Council may state or decide is required to be included in the 'cumulative assessment'' (Exhibit 10).
Further, Dr Martens concludes that:

the 50mm criteria for offsite flooding impacts arising from the development stated by Mr Collins is not exceeded.
if the Southern Cross Precinct is included in the base case, the maximum direct (non-cumulative) offsite impacts are 1cm.
if the Southern Cross Precinct is not included in the base case, the maximum direct (non-cumulative) offsite impact is also 1cm except for 'a small forested area affected by multiple drains immediately to the north of the site where the impact is 5cm' (Exhibit 10).

Dr Martens argues that the 5cm impact in this nominated area is acceptable as 'the area does not contain any dwellings, structures or land uses that would be adversely affected by the small change in local flood level' (Exhibit 10).

[46]

The proposed response to flooding events

Clause 7.3 of LEP 2012 sets out the requirements for flood planning. They are: The objectives of this clause are: (a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of the land, (b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the lands flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate changes, (c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment
Clause 7.3(3) states: Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is: (a) compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and (b) will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting detrimental increases in potential flood affectation of other development or properties. and (c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood (d) will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of watercourses, and (e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.
The Ballina Flood Risk Management Strategy (BFRMS) is the relevant strategy document for the Ballina Local Government Area. The scope of the study was to "identify and evaluate options available to manage flood risk in the study area" (Exhibit 1, vol 3). The subject site is within zone C of the study area.
The BFRMS also includes an evacuation capability assessment for the PMF event. The assessment is undertaken based on the storm with the shortest prediction time: 22 hours. The analysis of the PMF for zone C shows the evacuation of the zone for this storm is successful with a margin of 2.1 hours (Exhibit 1, vol 3).
Further, relevantly the Council's Floodplain Risk Management Study was prepared based on the assumption that the whole of the subject site has been filled, despite no consent being issued for filling works.
The proposed development has set the finished fill level above the 2100 climate change 1%AEP flood level + 500mm freeboard (Exhibit 10).
Dr Martens' evidence is that the development provides for an appropriate response to flooding events. His reasoning is as follows: 1. the site's 2100 climate change 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood level and probable maximum flood (PMF) levels are 2.25 and 3.3m AHD respectively. 2. after filling the residential areas of the site will be completely flood free for all events up to and including the PMF. 3. flood risk after filling, in accordance with Chapter 2b: Floodplain Management of DCP 2012 will therefore be low. (Exhibit 10)
Further Dr Martens notes that DCP 2012 outlines a number of prescriptive controls at Schedule D. He argues for the subject site these include:

Habitable floors to be above 1%AEP (2100 climate change conditions) +0.5m.
All structures to have flood compatible components below the 1%AEP (2100 climate change conditions) +0.5m.
The schedule notes that a structure can be used as a refuge area (ie. shelter in place) if the structural criteria are met.
car parking should be above the 1%AEP (2100 climate change conditions).

Dr Martens notes that the development complies with each of these standards. It is his evidence that it is only if these prescriptive standards in Schedule D of DCP 2012 are not met that the desired outcomes are relevant.
The Applicant's proposal is that in the case of a flood (local event, 1%AEP or PMF) that the site is not evacuated, other than if the State Emergency Services (SES) issues an evacuation order. The Applicant proposes that the residents 'shelter in place' (Exhibit 10).
The core dispute between the experts and the parties is the suitability of the 'shelter in place' approach.
Dr Martens argues that it is appropriate for residents to remain in their homes during a flood event on the following basis:

the site will be filled to such a level that all residents will be 'well above' the PMF.
residents will continue to have access to water, food and shelter and 'will be able to assist each other as needed' (Exhibit 10).
as the development site is centrally managed (2 permanent caretakers 24/7 and full time administration), it will be possible for the development to monitor flood warnings and distribute SES evacuation warnings without relying on SES or other emergency resources.
the specifics of the flood events on the locality, as detailed in the BFRMS, are such that there will be sufficient warning time for any persons needing to leave the site to make to make the approximately 10 minute trip to land outside the PMF.
warnings will be available prior to flooding occurring.
in the event of an evacuation order the use of bulk SMS, or other resident contact details, means that any evacuation order would be able to be rapidly implemented.
in addition to private vehicles of residents, the development has two permanent onsite buses which could also be utilised if evacuation of the site was directed.

Further, Dr Martens argues that the Council's approach to the proposed development is inconsistent with the consent issued for the Seniors Housing Development located adjacent the subject site. In that case the development was not built to the PMF and is reliant on the same egress routes. Further, the Council has approved an aged care facility adjacent the subject site and the more recently approved aged care facility on Corks Lane (Exhibit 10).
In contrast to Dr Martens, Mr Collins' evidence is that "there is insufficient time during [a] Richmond River flood, or during local flood events to evacuate the subject site following development, or to evacuate residents from the existing Palm Lake Resort" (Exhibit 10).
Mr Collins reasoning is that both North Creek Road and Corks Lane are cut within 2-3 hours of 'flooding commencing' in both Richmond River or local events. He argues that North Creek Road and Corks Lane were not assessed in the BFRMS. Further, Mr Collins argues that the logistics of advising residents and moving a large number of elderly residents, some in wheel chairs or walkers, are significant. Mr Collins argues that such an evacuation would need to occur concurrently with the adjoining Seniors Housing Development and that there are inadequate onsite resources to carry out such an evacuation.
In response to the Applicant's proposal for the residents to 'shelter in place', Mr Collins argues this is unsatisfactory on the following grounds:

as the residents of the proposed development age, many of the people on site will be unsuitable for living in isolated communities. Mr Collins argues this isolation would be up to 54 hours in the 1%AEP event.
water supply, power and essential services may be disrupted during large flood events for extended periods.
some residents will not be capable of self-evacuation.
the potential need for medical evacuations during the period of isolation has not been considered.
the proposed development will put an unreasonable burden on the SES if an evacuation is directed. There are insufficient SES resources to fulfil the demands of the BFRMS without the approval of this development application. The BFRMS identifies 486 SES volunteers required for effective evacuation.

Mr Collins argues that the subject development should be refused as "neither a shelter in place nor an evacuation strategy for flood emergency management planning are acceptable [for the subject site] and will not adequately mitigate the risk to the aged and special needs residents" (Exhibit 10). Further, he argues that the ability to safely manage the risk to residents is a threshold issue that must be dealt with prior to the grant of consent. He argues that the development application should be refused on this basis.

[47]

Submissions

Ms Reid notes that the Applicant has not prepared a "resolved flood evacuation/management plan for consideration by the Court and loosely proposes a 'shelter in place' approach combined with voluntary evacuation" (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 56).
Ms Reid submits that this approach is unsatisfactory on the following grounds:

there is no detail of how the residents can be provided with critical services (water, electricity, food etc) in an emergency event.
Mr Collins' oral evidence was that the local egress route would be flooded (and impassable) for 40 hours (1%AEP) and for about 12 hours in a local flash flood.
there is uncertainty in the evidence of Dr Marten's and Mr Mead that potable water and back-up power would be available to residents. Dr Johnson's oral evidence was only "that it is unlikely that potable water and flushing toilets would be available to residents who shelter in place" (Respondent's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 57).
it is agreed between the experts that about 30 cubic metres of water/ day would be required for 150 persons. No proposal for a storage tank is included in the development application and it is unclear where it could be accommodated.
Mr Collins refined the duration of the time period residents would be stranded to 40 hours in a 1%AEP event and 12 hours in a local event in his oral evidence. However, he remained of the view that the lack of detail, and the lack of the development of a flood management plan, means there is a lack of certainty that the flood risk of the subject site can be managed within practical limits.

In conclusion, Ms Reid argues that the Court could not be satisfied that it has sufficient information to form a conclusion that the development incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, as required by cl 7.3(3)(c) and (e) of LEP 2012.
Mr Hemmings submits that the subject site has been designed to be flood free in the local and PMF events. Therefore, evacuation is not required to ensure the safety of residents.
Mr Hemmings argues that the Applicant's decision to adopt a 'shelter in place' approach is supported by the BFRMS. Specifically, he notes that the BFRMS evaluates two key storm events: local catchment flooding and PMF. In relation to the local events, he notes that at 3.4 of the BFRMS, it states: "Rainfall is more intense during short duration events and is likely to overwhelm local drainage systems. In addition, faster flowing water would make driving conditions extremely hazardous. Evacuation is, therefore, not advised during flash flooding events (opinion of the FRMC) and it may be preferable for residents to 'shelter in place'. Such advice would remain at the discretion of the SES who would balance the relative risks of evacuation against isolation and inundation for a particular flood event." (Exhibit A)
Mr Hemmings notes that the above conclusion of the BFRMS for local events is consistent with the evidence of Dr Martens.
Mr Hemmings submits that given: the site is being filled to a level above the PMF; the short duration of the local events (12 hours); the conclusion of the BFRMS that the shelter in place approach is preferable, the approach of the Applicant is appropriate.
Mr Hemmings submits that on the evidence of the BFRMS and Dr Martens there are significant warning time prior to a PMF event. The BFRMS notes that the prediction time for a Richmond River dominated flood is estimated to be 14.5 hours. Similarly the BFRMS notes that the prediction time for an ocean storm surge PMF would be 22 hours.
Mr Hemmings emphasises that that for the shortest prediction time (14.5 hours) the modelled evacuation of zone C (in which the site is located) is noted in the BFRMS as successful with a 2.5 hour margin. Further, Mr Hemmings notes that the evacuation route is modelled in the BFRMS to have 35 hours from the start of the storm until the road is closed by flood waters.
Mr Hemmings concludes that in the time period available from the prediction of the storm, and then from the commencement of the storm, will be sufficient to allow those who wish to self-evacuate the subject site to do so.
Mr Hemmings submits that the proposed development is not a high care facility. Importantly, he notes that whilst the residents are "plainly able to age in place, (they) are all independent living". He argues that the residents are "entirely capable of either sheltering in place without emergency risk, or evacuating themselves - within the 25 hour window - or after the 22 hour window (the prediction time) commences - upon receipt of advice from the SES" (Applicant's written submissions, 20 August 2019, p 15).
In reply to the submissions of Ms Reid that the 'shelter in place' strategy poses a risk to residents, Mr Hemmings argues that this risk needs to be evaluated in the context of the duration of the event. The Ballina Shire Local Flood Plan notes that during the record Richmond River Flood in 1978 the duration of isolation did not exceed 12 hours (Exhibit NN).
Mr Hemmings concludes that the proposal conforms with the Council's approach to floodplain risk management and that the evidence does not give rise to a reason for refusal of the proposal development on the basis of a risk to life from flood.

[48]

Findings

Ballina Shire Local Flood Plan, 3.18: Managing Evacuation Operations at 3.18.1 states: 'When there is a risk to public safety, evacuation is the primary strategy'. It details the following circumstances where this may occur: "a. Evacuation of people when their homes or businesses are likely to flood. b. Evacuation of people who are unsuited to living in isolated circumstances, due to flood waters closing access. c. Evacuation of people where essential energy and utility services are likely to fail, have failed or where buildings have been made uninhabitable. d. Evacuation of people when their homes or businesses are at threat of collapse from coastal erosion." (Exhibit NN)
I am satisfied on the evidence of the experts, the BFRMS and the facts of the proposed development that the houses proposed by the application are unlikely to flood.
I accept that the sites and the buildings themselves are unlikely to be inundated given the modelling demonstrates that they are flood free to the PMF, including accounting for climate change.
Giving consideration to the serviced nature of the proposed development, its central management and the specific flood characteristics of the locality, I am satisfied that the duration of isolation likely to arise from a 'shelter in place' approach is not unreasonable. However, I am persuaded that additional certainty is required prior to the occupation of the development to ensure that appropriate continuity of services are provided to residents to safeguard their health and wellbeing. I am satisfied that this information is capable of being provided and should be included in the consent conditions for the development as follows: "Integrated Flood Evacuation and Emergency Management Plan 66. An Integrated Flood Evacuation and Emergency Management Plan must be prepared for the proposed development which demonstrates how evacuation and emergencies will be managed. The plan shall demonstrate adequate evacuation is possible having regard to: The existing Palm Lake Development (2004/328). Additional time and management strategies necessary to evacuate an elderly population, some of which may not be capable of self-evacuation. The available evacuation window in the context of road closure/inundation of North Creek Road and Corks Lane. The anticipated time required to evacuate. How the proposed strategy will interact with the SES Ballina Shire Local Flood Plan and any implications that the evacuation strategy will have on the SES Ballina Shire Local Flood Plan. Irrespective of evacuation strategies, on site facilities and services are to be provided to support residents and staff for periods of isolation during major flood events. As a minimum, this should include: The provision of sufficient bottled water in the event of water supply failure or contamination for drinking water supply for the projected duration of the 1%AEP event. Emergency food supplies of sufficient quantity to supply people trapped on site for the projected duration of the 1%AEP event. A communications facility with radio communication to the SES with on line links to the Bureau of Meteorology for weather and flood warnings, with independent power supply and with sufficient staff and residents trained in its use. Suitably sized on-site fuel storage for running backup generators. Internal intercom system to allow communication with all remaining residents irrespective of mains power outages. At least two staff on site trained in first aid with suitable first aid kits are to be onsite at all times following the release of a relevant flood event warning. An Integrated Flood Evacuation and Emergency Management Plan is to be submitted to the NSW State Emergency Service and approved by Council, addressing all of these requirements prior to the issue of the first Construction Certificate for the development. Potable Water - Flood Event 67. If it is planned to stay in place in the event of a flood, an adequate supply of potable water must be provided on site. Details of the water source, storage and quality must be submitted to Council."
I note that Council, in its conditions, seeks for the Applicant to make provision onsite for a helicopter to land in the event of a medical emergency during a flood occurrence. I am not persuaded that this is a reasonable condition on the following grounds:

the proposed development is a serviced self-care seniors living development, not a facility focussed on high care.
the warning times for the relevant flood events are substantial, and the distance needed to evacuate short. If specific residents have complex medical needs, I am satisfied there is sufficient time for them to self-evacuate.
the proposed development will be obligated, by condition, to have staff on site 24/7 following the release of a relevant flood event warning. They will be available to coordinate residents either sheltering in place or choosing to self-evacuate.
coach style buses are mandated by the consent to be onsite which can be utilised to evacuate residents who wish to do so.

On the preceding basis, I am satisfied a 'shelter in place' approach is appropriate for the site.
I am satisfied that the precondition at cl 7.3(3) of LEP 2012 is met by the development.

[50]

Site suitability

As noted at [56], the subject site is mapped on the Strategic Growth Areas Map under LEP 2012. The planning experts agree that cl 7.8 of LEP 2012 seeks to limit development that may prejudice future urban or employment land uses on the land.
Further, the planning experts agree that any habitable use, and many non-habitable uses, on the land would require modification of the land form to address flooding constraints (Exhibit 3).
Finally, the experts agree: "The potential adverse impacts of the proposal on neighbouring properties are limited to the properties fronting North Creek Road, being Nos. 174, 186 and 200 and that potential visual and character impacts are limited to these properties. The proposal will not cause any unacceptable visual or character impacts viewed from the public domain or as viewed from the existing seniors facility to the west" (Exhibit 3).
It is Ms McCabe's evidence that the site is not suitable for the proposed development on the following grounds:

an excessive amount of fill is required for the site to be made suitable for residential use;
the proposed development will result in the removal of vegetation in the Western Creek that is required to be retained under the approval for the existing Seniors Housing Development, as well as in parts of the site mapped as 'proximity to coastal wetland';
to mitigate the potential impacts arising from road noise on the new access way from North Creek Road, both during construction and on an ongoing basis, the Applicant seeks to construct a 2m high acoustic fence. This will significantly impact on the amenity of the adjoining property owners;
during a flood event residents sheltering in place will have limited access to food and medical services as they are proposed to be provided by a third party - not from a facility within the proposed development;
Any development encroaching on the land mapped as 'proximity to coastal wetland' is not supportable on planning grounds.

Further, Ms McCabe argues that "having regard to the provision of clause 25(5)(b) [of SEPP HSPD] the proposed development is not compatible with surrounding land uses" (Exhibit 3). Her reasoning is as follows: "- The development unreasonably encroaches in land identified as proximity to wetlands and results in the removal of Endangered Ecological Community. - The degree of land form change to accommodate the form and scale of the use is unreasonable. - Precludes more sensitive and appropriate uses being made for the lands. - Entrenches vulnerable uses in lands subject to flooding. - The intensity of development is inconsistent with that found or anticipated in the RU2 Rural Landscape Zone and on adjoining lands in the east and south."
In contrast to Ms McCabe, Mr Mead argues that the strategic planning framework for the site promotes its development for urban growth and that this distinction of the land in LEP 2012 should be given appropriate weight in the determination of the application.
Mr Mead concludes that if the expert evidence is that the site constraints can be dealt with then it is his opinion that the proposed development is a good planning outcome as it directly responds to the strategic planning framework (Exhibit 3).
Mr Mead also notes that the intensity of the development has been substantially reduced in comparison to the development for which the SCC was granted (77 dwellings now sought instead of the previous 177). He argues that the amendments to the proposed development have responded to the technical assessment of the sites constraints, consistent with the matters identified in the schedule to the SCC.
In response to Ms McCabe's evidence that the extent of fill is unreasonable, Mr Mead argues: "76. The proposal incorporates 'edge planting' at all interfaces with adjoining properties including several large trees that will screen or filter views from adjoining properties in addition to the extensive boundary planning that exists on those properties. The built form is limited to single storey across the site and therefore the visual impacts of the development which sits above the fill level is minimised. The character of the development in terms of height above existing ground level is compatible with existing surrounding development. Accordingly, the proposal positively responds to the flood constraint through its design, particularly setbacks, its approach to grading, site landscaping and the scale of buildings on the filled area." (Exhibit 3)
In relation to the impact to the adjoining properties from noise, Mr Mead relies on the conclusion of the Acoustic Report which states that with the proposed 2m high acoustic fence the relevant acoustic criteria at the adjoining properties will be met. Further, Mr Mead argues that the impact arises not from the Seniors Housing use, but from the traffic accessing the site.
Further, in considering the acoustic impact of this traffic Mr Mead argues that weight should be given to Council's intentions for North Creek Road to be linked and upgraded. It is his evidence that these works by Council will also increase traffic noise to the adjoining properties.
Finally, Mr Mead argues that whilst the consent authority must undertake its own assessment of the application it is appropriate that weight be given to the fact that, at a fundamental level, the Department of Planning and Environment formed an opinion that the development was compatible with the surrounding land uses having regard to: the natural environment; the impact of the proposed development; the ability of services to meet demand; and the impact of the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development. They were required to form this view prior to determining to issue the SCC.

[52]

Construction Impacts

Ms McCabe argues that the lack of a construction management plan means that the actual impacts of the construction of the proposed development as well as possible mitigation measures are not fully understood. It is Ms McCabe's evidence that these impacts should be understood and assessed prior to the granting of consent. Further, she argues that alternative means of construction access that may limit impacts to the adjoining properties have not been explored (Exhibit 3).
It is Ms McCabe's evidence that it is likely to take some 207 days for the fill required for the proposed development to be delivered to the subject site. This accords with evidence of the traffic experts in Exhibit 14. The traffic experts provide three scenarios for the conveyance of fill: "12 Hour operation: 8 Trucks per hour, 1 Truck every 7 minutes 8 Hour operation: 13 Trucks per hour, 1 Truck every 5 minutes 6 Hour operation: 17 Trucks per hour, 1 truck every 4 minutes" (Exhibit 14)
The traffic experts conclude that the truck movements required to deliver the volume of fill would continue for 41 weeks if a five day week is adopted and 35 weeks if a six day working week is adopted (Exhibit 14).
Ms McCabe concludes that: "This is a significant impact on the amenity and enjoyment of the adjoining properties particularly given the mitigation measures in the form of an acoustic wall in a non-urban environment. A mitigation measure that is not appropriate in this setting. These impacts will be in the form of: - Noise; - Dust; - Disturbance to the enjoyment of the property; and - Alteration to outlook." (Exhibit 3)
It is Ms McCabe's evidence that the scale of the works and the sensitivity of the subject site means that a construction management plan is required prior to the grant of consent and should not be conditioned.
Mr Mead's evidence is that whilst impacts arising from the construction of the development are inevitable, they should be minimised as far as practicable. In order to achieve this aim, Mr Mead's evidence is that: "The acoustic fencing should be implemented prior to construction to assist with noise reduction and a detailed construction management plan should be required as a condition of development consent. The NSW Construction Noise Guide prepared by the EPA provides initiatives for minimising impacts as much as is practical using various work practises and management strategies and I have considered some of its content. I note that other experts have raised issues that should be included in such a plan. From a planning point of view, that plan should address the following matters: Dust management; Noise minimisation initiatives (developed in conjunction with an acoustic expert); Driver induction (including introduction to the CMP); Control of work times to standard daytime hours; Managing trucking routes and times to avoid early morning and late afternoon noise impacts; Minimising truck movements by using high capacity vehicles and ensuring backloads where feasible; Ensuring there is a robust and reliable communication and complaints management process and appropriate responses to complaint; Providing respite from noise impacts if practicable (for example, a campaign of trucking followed by a break while soil is placed and compacted); Making strategic use of stockpiles and other barriers to minimise noise impacts from trucking and earthmoving equipment; Maintaining a good quality access road with a smooth surface (i.e. a regular grading program); Movement alarms on vehicles and equipment should be of the non-tonal type; and The noise minimisation work practices included in the CMP should be included as specific requirements in supplier contracts." (Exhibit 3)
Mr Mead concludes that the imposition of the proceeding will not eliminate impacts from the construction, but will assist in minimising the to the extent practical.

[56]

Conditions of Consent

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties proposed competing sets of consent conditions. Consistent with my findings on the issues in dispute between the parties, I have applied the appropriate conditions to mirror my findings on the specific areas of contention. It is, however, appropriate to make some final remarks in relation to the matters proposed to be deferred conditions in the consent.
Section 4.16(3) of the EPA Act provides that a development consent may be granted subject to a condition that the consent is not to operate until the Applicant satisfies the consent authority as to a matter specified in the condition. In this matter, the Respondent proposes a raft of deferred commencement conditions on matters ranging from the VMP, Bushfire Management, and Mosquito Management etc.
Pursuant to s 4.17(1) of the EPA Act, the consent authority may impose a condition of development consent if: (a) it relates to any matter referred to in section 4.15 (1) of relevance to the development the subject of the consent, or … (f) it requires the carrying out of works (whether or not being works on land to which the application relates) relating to any matter referred to in section 79C(1), or (g) it modifies details of the development the subject of the development application, or …
Relevantly, s 4.17(4) requires that conditions are expressed in terms of outcomes or objectives and requires conditions to expressed in a manner that identifies both of the following: 1. one or more express outcomes or objectives that the development or a specified part or aspect of the development must achieve, 2. clear criteria against which achievement of the outcome or objective must be assessed.
Conditions applied on a consent relate to the development for which consent is sought.
In order for conditions to be successful, they need to be clear and certain, as outlined in Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council (2006) 143 LGERA 277 which states at [24]: "[that there is no lawful development consent where the consent falls into one of two categories] the first category is where a condition has the effect of 'significantly altering the development in respect of which the application is made': at 737B; 351 (Priestly JA). The second category is where Council has purportedly granted consent, but in terms which lack finality or certainty, so that there is, in substance, no effective consent to the application."
The question of whether a condition is final and certain is addressed in Young v Gosford City Council (2001) 120 LGERA 243; [2001] NSWLEC 191 at [46] as follows: "To answer the question as to whether Condition 1 is final and certain, one asks, whether the condition allows the consent to be fundamentally or significantly altered by the subsequent determination of the matter which has been deferred. If it is possible that, consequent upon the matter which has been left open the consent is ultimately implemented may be significantly different from that which the consent purportedly approved, then the condition falls foul of the requirement that it be final and certain. …"
I am satisfied that the implementation of the deferred commencement conditions proposed by the Respondent would require a number of steps and coordination with a range experts to ensure an appropriate balancing of impacts and benefits. Given this, I find that the wording of the Respondent's proposed deferred commencement conditions (with the exception of 16: Separate Application for works in North Creek Road) are not final and certain.
A separate consideration in determining whether the proposed deferred commencement condition is appropriate is whether it results in the deferral of essential matters (Weal v Bathurst City Council (2000) 111 LGERA 181; [2000] NSWCA 88). I am satisfied the matters sought to be included in the Respondent's proposed deferred commencement conditions (with the exception of 16: Separate Application for works in North Creek Road) fail on this consideration.
The final set of consent conditions, consistent with the preceding and the findings in the judgment are annexed.

Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (58 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (27)

Cited By (5)