Platino Properties Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Cases Cited: Canterbury-Bankstown Council v Realize Architecture Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 31
Intrapac Skenners Head Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 83
Gann v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 157
North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Assocs Pty Ltd (1998) 43 LGERA 468; [1998] NSWLR 468
Valhalla Cinemas Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Municipal Council (1986) 60 LGRA 240
Platino Properties Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1186

Texts Cited: Warringah Development Control Plan 2011

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Platino Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
J Palmer (Solicitor)(Applicant)
M Domingo (Solicitor)(Respondent)
Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/418220 and 2025/489494

Publication restriction: No

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: These are two modification applications directly to the Court in the Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).

2. The Applicant seeks to modify Development Consent DA2021/0212 granted by the Court on 20 April 2023 in Platino Properties Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1186 (Platino) for demolition works and constructions of a mixed development, comprising seniors housing, commercial uses, car parking, landscaping and stratum subdivision (the Consent) at 5 Skyline Place, Frenchs Forest legally described as Lot 11 DP 1258355 (the Site).

3. The first modification application No. 2025/0647 is proceedings number 2025/418220 and known as Mod 4, may broadly be described as follows:

4. updated layout and floor plans associated with redistribution of the affordable housing across level 1-2 and changes to the apartment mix;

5. changes to landscaping and open space to reflect the approved child care under DA 2025/0151 (approved by Sydney Northern Planning Panel on 17 September 2025);

6. minor changes to facilitate car park exhaust and amendments to rooftop plant; and

7. Addition of a pathway on the western side of the western building, which serves as a bin path of travel, and a fire egress.

8. The second modification application 26/0001 is proceedings number 2025/489494 and known as Mod 5, may broadly be described as follows:

9. deletion of supported disability living units at ground floor of the western building and replacement with apartments;

10. loss of disability living units reflected in increased affordable housing units (equivalent in GFA to the lost units) throughout the development;

11. consequential landscaping (minor additional paths from the new ground floor units), parking (reduction by 2 spaces to reflect the changed unit yield) and waste management changes (bin tug parking location, and yield details in the waste management plan).

12. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 19 February and 12 and 19 March 2026. I presided over the conciliation conference.

13. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court approving the modification of a development consent subject to conditions.

14. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties. The Respondent has filed a Statement of Facts and Contentions in relation to Mod 4 on 27 January 2026 (Mod 4 SOFAC) and a Statement of Facts and Contentions in relation to Mod 5 on 11 February 2026 (Mod 5 SOFAC)

15. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55 of the EPA Act to approve modification of the Consent.

16. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 4.55 of the EPA Act to modify a consent. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in jurisdictional statements provided to the Court.

17. Modification applications made under s 4.55(8) of the EPA Act are not appeals that need to be “upheld” because they are applications made directly to the Court. Section 4.55(8) of the EPA Act states:

(8) Modifications by the Court The provisions of this section extend, subject to the regulations, to enable the Court to modify a consent granted by it but, in the extension of those provisions, the functions imposed on a consent authority under subsection (1A)(c) or subsection (2)(b) and (c) are to be exercised by the relevant consent authority and not the Court.

Notification of the proposed modifications to the Consent

11. The modification application known as Mod 4 was notified in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Reg) and the Respondent’s Community Participation Plan from 20 November 2025 to 4 December 2025, as detailed in paragraphs 15-16 of the Mod 4 SOFAC. One objection was received raising the following issues:

12. Failure to assess cumulative impacts of development in the locality;

13. Reduction in landscaping, deep soil and open space;

14. Increased traffic concentration and access impacts;

15. Noise impact from mechanical plant and carpark exhaust;

16. Increase in bulk, overshadowing and visual impact;

17. Occupant amenity reduction; and

18. Obsolete technical reports, including traffic and parking report.

19. The Respondent has considered this submission and the parties agree that it does not give rise to any matter that would warrant refusal to approve Mod 4.

20. The modification application for Mod 5 was notified in accordance with the EPA Reg and the Warringah Development Control Plan 2011 from 15 January 2026 to 29 January 2026, as detailed in paragraph 17 of the Mod 5 SOFAC. No submissions were received.

The power to modify a development consent

14. The relevant provisions of s 4.55 of the EPA Act are s 4.55(1A) and (3), and these set the jurisdictional requirements. It is well established that the terms of s 4.55 is a free-standing provision and any constraints on the power to modify are found solely within s4.55 (Intrapac Skenners Head Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 83 at [38]; Gann v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 157 at [9]; North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Assocs Pty Ltd (1998) 43 LGERA 468; [1998] NSWLR 468 (at 445, 481); Valhalla Cinemas Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Municipal Council (1986) 60 LGRA 240 (at 246)).

15. Relevantly, ss 4.55(1A) and (3) of the EPA Act provide as follows:

(1A) Modifications involving no or minimal environmental impact A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if—

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of no or minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is the same or substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with—

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to such a modification.

…

(3) In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 4.15(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. The consent authority must also take into consideration the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent that is sought to be modified.

No or minimal environmental impact: s 4.55(1A)(a), EPA Act

Mod 4

16. The proposed Mod 4 modifications are primarily limited to refining servicing, internal layout and ancillary amenity with limited visual or overshadowing impact. These changes are detailed in pages 4 – 7 of the Addendum to SEE Mod 2025/0647 prepared by Keylan Consulting dated February 2026 (Addendum SEE).

17. The effects of the Proposal are detailed in page 7 of the Addendum SEE.

18. I accept and am satisfied that Mod 4 is of no or minimal environmental impact because there are no changes to the approved building envelope or massing, with the exception of an additional rooftop plant and associated screening and the modification will not result in any significant environmental impacts or adverse visual or overshadowing impacts. Additionally, the proposed relocated driveway has a two-way design and control island so as not to have any impact on vehicle movements along Skyline Place.

19. Accordingly, I accept that there is no requirement for referral to or approval by concurrence or other approval bodies involved in the grant of the Consent, unlike for a modification application pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act. This is a complete answer to contention 1 of the Mod 4 SOFAC.

Mod 5

20. The proposed Mod 5 modifications are limited to largely operational changes to internal layout, housing mix and ancillary amenity. These changes are detailed in pages 4 – 7 of the Addendum SEE Modification 4 and 5 (Combined) prepared by Keylan Consulting dated February 2026 (the Addendum Combined SEE).

21. The effects of the Proposal are detailed in page 7 of the Addendum Combined SEE.

22. I accept and am satisfied that Mod 5 is of no or minimal environmental impact because there are no changes to the approved building envelope or massing and Mod 5 will not result in any significant environmental impacts or adverse impacts on the local context and neighbouring amenity.

23. Similarly, I accept that there is no requirement for referral to or approval by concurrence or other approval bodies involved in the grant of the Consent, unlike for a modification application pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act. This is a complete answer to contention 1 of the Mod 5 SOFAC.

S 4.55(3) Considerations for Mod 4 and Mod 5

24. The parties have taken into account the relevant considerations pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act in reaching their agreement. An assessment against s 4.15(1) for Mod 4 is provided at section 6 from p 33 of the Modification Report prepared by Keylan Consulting dated October 2025 filed with the Class 1 Application (the Mod 4 Modification Report) and for Mod 5 at section 6 from p 28 of the Modification Report prepared by Keylan Consulting dated December 2025 filed with the Class 1 Application (the Mod 5 Modification Report).

25. To the extent that it is applicable to a modification application, the parties agree that the development as modified will be characterised as seniors housing within the meaning of cl 10 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors SEPP). At the time of the original DA lodgement, the Site was zoned B7 Business Park under the Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 (WLEP 2011) where the approved development was permissible with consent under cl 16 of the Seniors SEPP despite the provisions of the WLEP 2011. This is discussed further at page 23 of the Mod 4 Modification Report.

26. Other relevant matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act were considered and discussed in the assessment report prepared in relation to the Consent.

27. The parties have considered the written decision in Platino and agree, having regard to the minor nature of the modifications, that no aspect of the proposed modifications Mod 4 or Mod 5 offends or is contrary to any reasoning in that decision.

28. Although not matters going to jurisdiction, the parties draw the Court’s attention to the following:

29. Additional and amended material has been prepared to address the matters in contention in the Mod 4 SOFAC and the Mod 5 SOFAC, notably:

(a) updated landscaped plans; (b) updated architectural plans; (c) design verification statement (noting such a statement is required for a s4.55(2) application, but not a s4.55(1A) application); (d) waste management plan; (e) outline of construction method for proposed pathway; and (f) fire exit requirements assessment.

2. The amended material clarifies the modifications sought, including waste management requirements and store sizes and locations, and the path of travel for bins, as well as generally ensuring consistency between all plans and documents.
3. The amended material confirms that the western pathway, in part used as a path of travel for bins, is also necessary as fire egress, and:

(a) must be set back 6m from the face of the building in accordance with the advice in the Affinity Fire Engineering Letter 24 February 2026; and (b) that it will have minimal impact on existing trees in accordance with the advice contained in the Paddock Letter dated 26 February 2026.

4. The documents referred to in [28(1)(e)] and [28(1)(f)] above were relied on in both proceedings, and continue to provide justification for the minor landscaping and pathway changes as a result of these modifications.

Are the modifications substantially the same as the Consent?: s 4.55(1A)(b)

29. The ‘substantially the same’ test required by s 4.55(2)(a), and equally by s4.55(1A), was summarised by Preston CJ in Canterbury-Bankstown Council v Realize Architecture Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 31 at [26] as follows:

“Fourthly, this approach, contended by the Council, of summing separate negative and neutral determinations of the precondition in s 4.55(2)(a) is inconsistent with the test in s 4.55(2)(a) and involves misdirection. The test in s 4.55(2)(a) requires a simple comparison of the two developments, the development as modified and the development as originally approved: Arrage v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 85 at [24]; Feldkirchen Pty Ltd v Development Implementation Pty Ltd (2022) 254 LGERA 114; [2022] NSWCA 227 at [112]. This comparison can involve “an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper context”: Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280 at [56]. But the comparison required by s 4.55(2)(a) remains a holistic one of the two developments being compared – the modified development and the originally approved development. The opinion of satisfaction that s 4.55(2)(a) requires is that the two developments being compared are substantially the same development, not that either the quantitative features or the qualitative features of the two developments are substantially the same.”

Mod 4

30. The parties agree that the proposed Mod 4 modification results in a development which is substantially the same as the Consent as originally approved for the following reasons:

31. The Proposal maintains the primary use as that which was approved, facilitating demolition works and construction of a mixed development, comprising seniors housing, commercial uses, landscaping and stratum subdivision;

32. The quantitative changes are detailed in pages 4-5 of the Addendum SEE as follows:

(a) Building heights, floor space ratio, bulk and scale have been maintained in accordance with the approved plans; (b) Number of affordable housing units, project independence units, non-residential floor area and car parking maintained in accordance with the approved plans; (c) Revised internal layout causes the number of dwellings to decrease from 98 to 93 apartments, market independent living units to decrease from 84 to 79 apartments, and solar access to decrease from 74 to 73 apartments, while cross ventilation increases from 76 to 82 apartments; (d) Although the landscaped Area has decreased from 36.2% to 33.9% and deep soil from 22.5% to 17.9%, these reductions can be attributed to the impervious play spaces approved and allocated to the child care facility tenancy.

3. The qualitative changes are detailed in pages 5-7 of the Addendum SEE as follows:

(a) The fundamental design elements are maintained, including the approved building envelopes, footprint, overall arrangements of the building’s interior and communal open space positioning; (b) principal changes relate to an additional peripheral pathway, an additional carpark exhaust shaft and routing through to the roof level, loading and waste adjustments; affordable housing reallocation; seniors amenity changes and changes to rooftop finishes; (c) design changes relate primarily to refining servicing, internal layout and ancillary amenity with limited visual or overshadowing impact.

4. substantive changes to the conditions of consent are limited to the deletion of Condition 10 and Condition 33 due to having been satisfactorily provided for in approved plans and being otherwise redundant.

Substantially the same Mod 5

31. The parties agree that the proposed Mod 5 modification results in a development which is substantially the same as the Consent as originally approved for the following reasons:

32. The Proposal maintains the primary use as that which was approved, facilitating demolition works and construction of a mixed development, comprising seniors housing, commercial uses, landscaping and stratum subdivision;

33. The quantitative changes are detailed in pages 4-6 of the Addendum Combined SEE as follows:

(a) The overall number of storeys, quantum of total floor space, bulk and scale have been maintained in accordance with the approved plans; (b) changes to internal apartment layouts have caused increases of affordable housing from 4 to 11 units, increases in market independent living from 84 to 87 units, and decrease in project independence from 10 to 0 units; (c) although the non-residential floor area has been reduced by 57.4% from the original approval, there is an increase from the area as modified under Mod2023/0617, and a 1.4% increase in affordable housing gross floor area; (d) solar access (min 2 hours) has increased from 74 to 80 apartments, and cross ventilation has increased from 76 to 81 apartments; (e) increase in car parking from 202 to 203 spaces in response to changes to apartment yield and to comply with the minimum requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021; (f) although landscaped area has decreased by 4.7% from the Consent, there is an increase in the area as to be modified in the related proceedings (2025/418220) given the provision of additional landscaped private open space.

3. The qualitative changes are detailed on pages 6-7 of the Addendum Combined SEE as follows:

(a) The fundamental design elements are maintained, including the approved building envelopes, footprint, site organisation and overall character of the development; (b) principal changes relate to new market housing on the ground floor; changes to floor plan and landscape; additional affordable housing; additional car parking; adjustment of delivery bay, new bulky store and waste room roller door; additional pathway; replacement of roof finishing; introduction of carpark exhaust shaft; internal changes to common area and associated reduction of ground floor area dedicated to employment generating uses. (c) proposed alterations relate primarily to refining internal layout, housing mix and ancillary amenity changes that do not impact local context and neighbouring amenity.

4. substantive changes to the conditions of consent are limited to the deletion of Condition 5 which has become redundant as Project Independence does not have the required funding to operate 10 units for disability housing at the Site.

5. An amended BASIX certificate has been provided to the Court in accordance with the requirement of s 100(3) of the EPA Reg.

6. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I adopt the reasons given by the parties as set out above.

7. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Orders modification application 25/0647 (Mod 4) proceedings number 2025/418220:

35. The Court, exercising under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) the function of Northern Beaches Council as the relevant consent authority under s 113(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), approves the applicant’s application to amend the application for modification of the development consent DA 2021/0212 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 20 April 2023 to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:

36. Architectural plans prepared by PA Studio dated 19 February 2026, Issue K;

| Drawing No. | Drawing Name | | DA 101 | Site Plan | | DA201 | Lower Basement Carpark | | DA202 | Basement Carpark | | DA203 | Ground Floor Plan | | DA204 | Level 1 Floor Plan | | DA205 | Level 2 Floor Plan | | DA206 | Level 3 Floor Plan | | DA207 | Level 4 Floor Plan | | DA208 | Level 5 Floor Plan | | DA209 | Level 6 Floor Plan | | DA210 | Level 7 Floor Plan | | DA211 | Roof Plan | | DA301 | Sections S1 & S2 | | DA302 | Sections S3 & S4 | | DA303 | Section S5 | | DA401 | East Elevation | | DA402 | North Elevation | | DA403 | West Elevation | | DA404 | South Elevation | | | Draft Stratum Plan – Location & Lower Basement & Basement & Ground Floor & First Floor & Second Floor & Third Floor Plans |

2. Addendum to SEE Modification Mod2025/0647 prepared by Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd and dated February 2026;
3. Landscape Plans “‘Jardins’ Seniors Living Frenchs Forest | Landscape S4.55(8) Package” prepared by Paddock Landscape Architects dated 09.03.26, Issue 3;

| Drawing No. | Drawing Name | | 2046-01 | Drawing Register, General Notes & Extent of Landscape Works Plan | | 2046-02 | Design Statement Design Principles Location Plan | | 2046-03 | Overall Site Plan | | 2046-04 | Landscape S4.55(8) Plan 1 of 2 Groundfloor | | 2046-05 | Landscape S4.55(8) Plan 2 of 2 Level 7 Roof Terrace Communal Building Green Roof | | 2046-06 | Elevation A Elevation B | | 2046-07 | Sectional Elevation C NSW RFS Asset Protection Zone Requirements | | 2046-08 | Landscape Area Plan Deep Soil Plan | | 2046-09 | Planting S4.55(8) Plan 1 of 2 Groundfloor Building Surrounds, Green Roof & Roof Terrace | | 2046-010 | Planting S4.55(8) Plan 2 of 2 Buffer Zones | | 2046-011 | Plant Schedule 1 of 2 Groundfloor Building Surrounds, Green Roof & Roof Terrace | | 2046-012 | Plant Schedule 2 of 2 Buffer Zones | | 2046-013 | Existing Tree Canopy Cover Diagram Proposed Tree Canopy Cover Diagram |

4. Letter re Fire Isolated Exit prepared by Affinity Fire Engineering and dated 24 February 2026

5. Letter re Modification of Landscape Path (Trees 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, and 132) prepared by David Warwick of Paddock Landscape Architects and dated 26 February 2026;

6. Construction Waste Management Plan MOD 2025/0647 dated 15 December 2025;

7. Design verification statement prepared by George Revay and dated February 2026;

8. Building Code of Australia Capability Statement for DA Submission prepared by Technical Inner Sight and dated 17 December 2025.

9. The application to modify a development consent the subject of these proceedings, made directly to the Court pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), is approved.

10. Development consent DA2021/0212 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 20 April 2023 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A. The consolidated conditions for Development Consent DA2021/0212, including the modifications made by this approval, are set out at Annexure B.

Orders modification application 26/0001 (Mod 5) proceedings number 2025/489494

38. The Court, exercising under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) the function of Northern Beaches Council as the relevant consent authority under s 113(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), approves the applicant’s application to amend the application for modification of the development consent DA 2021/0212 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 20 April 2023 to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:

39. Addendum to SEE Modification 4 and 5 (Combined) prepared by Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd dated February 2026;

40. Architectural Plans prepared by PA Studio dated 19 February 2026, Issue L;

| Drawing No. | Drawing Name | | DA101 | Site Plan | | DA201 | Lower Basement Carpark | | DA202 | Basement Carpark | | DA203 | Ground Floor Plan | | DA204 | Level 1 Floor Plan | | DA205 | Level 2 Floor Plan | | DA206 | Level 3 Floor Plan | | DA301 | Sections S1 & S2 | | DA401 | East Elevation | | DA402 | North Elevation | | DA403 | West Elevation | | DA404 | South Elevation | | DA1001 | Solar Access | | DA1002 | Cross Ventilation | | DA1003 | Affordable Area Calculation |

3. Landscape Plans “‘Jardins’ Seniors Living Frenchs Forest | Landscape S4.55(8) Package” prepared by Paddock Landscape Architects dated 27.02.26, Issue 1;

| Drawing No. | Drawing Name | | 2046-01 | Drawing Register, General Notes & Extent of Landscape Works Plan | | 2046-02 | Design Statement Design Principles Location Plan | | 2046-03 | Overall Site Plan | | 2046-04 | Landscape S4.55(8) Plan 1 of 2 Groundfloor | | 2046-05 | Landscape S4.55(8) Plan 2 of 2 Level 7 Roof Terrace Communal Building Green Roof | | 2046-06 | Elevation A Elevation B | | 2046-07 | Sectional Elevation C NSW RFS Asset Protection Zone Requirements | | 2046-08 | Landscape Area Plan Deep Soil Plan | | 2046-09 | Planting S4.55(8) Plan 1 of 2 Groundfloor Building Surrounds, Green Roof & Roof Terrace | | 2046-010 | Planting S4.55(8) Plan 2 of 2 Buffer Zones | | 2046-011 | Plant Schedule 1 of 2 Groundfloor Building Surrounds, Green Roof & Roof Terrace | | 2046-012 | Plant Schedule 2 of 2 Buffer Zones | | 2046-013 | Existing Tree Canopy Cover Diagram Proposed Tree Canopy Cover Diagram |

4. Letter re Fire Isolated Exit prepared by Affinity Fire Engineering and dated 24 February 2026

5. Addendum to SEE Modification 4 and 5 (Combined) prepared by Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd and dated February 2026

6. Letter re Modification of Landscape Path (Trees 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, and 132) prepared by David Warwick of Paddock Landscape Architects and dated 26 February 2026

7. Registrable Stratum Plan prepared by Christopher Thomas Norton dated 27 November 2025, Issue D;

8. Construction Waste Management Plan dated 15 December 2025;

9. Design Verification Statement prepared by George Revay and dated February 2026.

10. The application to modify a development consent the subject of these proceedings, made directly to the Court pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), is approved.

11. Development consent DA2021/0212 granted by the Land and Environment Court on 20 April 2023 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure 1. The consolidated conditions for Development Consent DA2021/0212, including the modifications made by this approval, are set out at Annexure 2.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (245 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (512 KB, pdf)

Annexure 1 (219 KB, pdf)

Annexure 2 (546 KB, pdf)

**********