/

/

Panda G Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1126 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Panda G Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1126

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-03-13|Before: Gray C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-03-13

Before

Gray C

Catchwords

APPEAL – development application – dual occupancy and Torrens
title subdivision – conciliation conference –
agreement reached
– orders made

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

APPEAL – development application – dual occupancy and Torrenstitle subdivision – conciliation conference –agreement reached– orders made

Judgment

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

Medium Neutral Citation: Panda G Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2026] NSWLEC 1126

Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 5 and 6 March 2026

Date of orders: 13 March 2026

Decision date: 13 March 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Gray C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application DA/1014/2025, as amended, for the erection of an attached dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision of Lot 2 in DP 1307968 (799.4m2) into two lots (each 399.7m2), removal of trees, stormwater infrastructure and landscaping, at 2A South Pacific Drive, MacMasters Beach NSW 2251, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA
Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 7.2
Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 4.1B, 4.1C Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 27, 37, 38 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, s 2.1

COMMISSIONER: This an appeal concerning a development application for the construction of a dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision at 2A South Pacific Drive, MacMasters Beach. The development application was lodged on 12 August 2025. Following the expiry of the period after which a development application is deemed to be refused, the applicant lodged an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [12] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 5 March 2026. I presided over the conciliation conference.
At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties.
The agreement was subsequently filed on 6 March 2026, following the Council’s approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation 2021). The amended development application has an altered design and presentation, including the split of the driveway into separate driveways in order to retain a high retention value tree in the front setback. The altered design also introduces a series of different elements across the built form presentation, reduces the bulk of the southern dwelling so that it now presents as two-storeys to the south, and provides split floor levels for the two dwellings so that they better follow the topography of the land. A split level within the northern dwelling also allows the floor level at the front of that dwelling to be lifted to avoid incursion into protection zones for the tree in the front setback.
The site is legally described as Lot 2 of DP1307968, and was created following the grant of consent for subdivision and clearing of land, in DA/61550/2021 (subdivision consent). The subdivision consent authorised the removal of 43 trees from the parent lot, which are now known as Lots 1 and 2 of DP1307968. The proposed development does not seek to remove any additional vegetation that was in existence at the time of, and assessed as part of, the subdivision consent. However, two eucalyptus saplings have grown on the site since that time, and are proposed to be removed by the proposed development.
The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by written submissions on the statutory pre-conditions to the grant of development consent. I have considered the contents of the submissions, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in condition 1. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This test is concerned with there being no jurisdictional constraints that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the decision that the parties’ have agreed upon (see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the following reasons:
The development works are for the purposes of a dual occupancy, which is a use that is permissible with development consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the site is located, pursuant to the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (CCLEP).
The proposed development complies with the height development standard that applies pursuant to the CCLEP, and there is no floor space ratio development standard that applies to the site.
The site meets the minimum lot size requirements for the construction of a dual occupancy, pursuant to cl 4.1B of the CCLEP. Further, whilst a minimum subdivision lot size applies to the site, cl 4.1C(3) of the CCLEP provides an exception to minimum subdivision lot sizes for the subdivision of land on which a dual occupancy is approved to be erected.
Section 4.14 of the EPA Act applies to the site, as it is mapped as bush fire prone land. Based on the Bushfire Assessment Report dated 22 April 2025, I am satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019, as required by s 4.14(1)(a).
As the proposed development only includes the clearing of two trees (the other clearing having been approved by the subdivision consent), it does not propose clearing to an extent that exceeds the biodiversity offsets scheme threshold pursuant to cl 7.2(1) of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (NSW).
Consideration has been given as to whether the subject site is contaminated as required by s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021. Based on the site having a history of being vacant and vegetated, it is unlikely to be contaminated.
Consistent with the requirements of s 27 of the EPA Regulation 2021, the development application is accompanied by the BASIX certificate dated 3 March 2026. Based on the BASIX certificate, I am satisfied of the requirement in s 2.1(5) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. As a result of subsequent changes to the development application, an updated BASIX certificate is required, and is a requirement of condition 1.3 of Annexure A.
The development application was notified between 22 August 2025 and 5 September 2025, and 28 written submissions were received in response. I have considered the issues raised in those submissions.
The subdivision consent required a number of positive covenants and restrictions to be registered on title. One particular restriction prevents the erection of any structures outside a defined envelope, marked as E. Proposed condition 6.11A requires the restriction to be varied to correct the unintended consequence of prohibiting all ancillary structures, and ensures that there will be no breach of the restriction by the structures proposed on the development application plans and other ancillary structures in future that do not increase bushfire hazard. This condition, and the others in Annexure A, can be lawfully imposed pursuant to s 4.17(1) of the EPA Act.
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could have made in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act requires me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The LEC Act also requires me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)).
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any evaluative judgment on the matters that were originally in dispute between the parties, or any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
The Court notes:
The Central Coast Council as the relevant consent authority, pursuant to s 38(1) of the EPA Regulation 2021, has approved the Applicant amending Development Application No DA/1014/2025 lodged on 12 August 2025 to rely on the amended documents and plans specified below: