/

/

Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Pty Ltd atf The Trustee for Platinum... [2026] NSWLEC 1031 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Pty Ltd atf The Trustee for Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Trust v Northern Beaches Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1031

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-01-28|Before: Peatman AC

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-01-28

Before

Peatman AC

Catchwords

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – 3 additional apartments - conciliation
conference – agreement between the parties – orders

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

MODIFICATION APPLICATION – 3 additional apartments - conciliationconference – agreement between the parties – orders

Judgment

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

Medium Neutral Citation: Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Pty Ltd atf The Trustee for Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Trust v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1031

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 September 2025, 6 and 27 November 2025 and 11 and 15 December 2025.

Date of orders: 28 January 2026

Decision date: 28 January 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Peatman AC

Decision: The Court orders:
(1) Pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Modification Application Mod2025/0228 to DA2020/0393 for three additional residential apartments, additional residential waste management bins within the approved ground floor waste holding room and minor alteration to Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1199795 known as 28 Lockwood Avenue, Belrose NSW 2085 is approved.
(2) Development Consent DA2020/0393 is modified in accordance with Annexure A.
(3) Development Consent DA2020/0393 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – 3 additional apartments - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ss 4.15, 4.55
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) ss 17, 34
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 ss 100, 102, 113 Warringah Local Environment Plan 2011 cll 4.3, 4.6

The Site is zoned E1 Local Centre pursuant to the Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 (WLEP 2011).
The Site is an irregularly shaped allotment with a frontage of 61.785m to Lockwood Avenue to the south, 27.945m to Glen Street to the south-east, and 75.7m to Glenrose Place to the north and north-east. The Site area is 5,322m2.
The Site slopes from Lockwood Avenue down to Glenrose Place for approximately 6.1m.
To the south-east of the Site is a service station; to the west is an area of open space and public pathway with a dwelling house and childcare centre further west again. To the north-east of the Site is the Glenrose Shopping Centre, and to the east is the Glen Street Community Hub including a library theatre and gymnasium. To the south, west and north-west of the Site, the area has been developed primarily for residential housing.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 3 September 2025, 6 and 27 November 2025, 11 and 15 December 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
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 determining if the application meets the qualifications set out in s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act such that the Court approves the MA. The following amendments were agreed to by the Applicant and the Council during the s34(1) Conciliation Conference:
Drawing A03.11: the unit on level 1 has been redesigned and reduced in area; and the footprint of the apartments on Level 2 has been updated and is shown with a blue hatch on the Drawing.
Drawing A03.12: The parapet wall has been recessed 1m from the edge of the building; the number of apartments have been reduced in number from five to three and new plant area louvre screens added.
Drawing A03.13: the roof layout updated to reflect the revised unit configuration
Drawings A09.01 and A0:02 The parapet has been recessed 1m from the edge of the building and its height is 1.2m.
The Sections have been updated.
Solar and sun views have been updated to reflect amendments.
Cross ventilation has been updated.
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. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under subss 4.55(2), (3) and (8) of the EPA Act to approve the MA. 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, and described how each jurisdictional prerequisite has been satisfied as set out below.
Pursuant to s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act, the Court must be 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 original granted, and before that consent as originally granted was modified. The parties agree that the MA is substantially the same as the Original DA.
The three tasks or steps that need to be undertaken in assessing whether the MA is substantially the same as the development to which consent was originally granted were identified by Preston CJ in Canterbury-Bankstown Council v Realize Architecture Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 31 (Realize) at [7]:

Taking into account the tests, and sub-tests as set out above, in accordance with s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act, from a holistic perspective I agree with the parties that the MA is substantially the same as the Original DA. The facts in relation to the quantitative and qualitative analyses, fall within the within the words and phrases of the precondition in s 4.55(2)(a).
The second jurisdictional requirement is s 4.55(2)(b): the Original DA is subject to conditions that were imposed as a result of concurrence from Ausgrid. The MA was referred to and considered by Ausgrid. Ausgrid issued its consent to the MA subject to conditions that have been incorporated in Annexures A and B.
The third jurisdictional requirements in s 4.55 (c) relate to notification, and the power of the Council to notify. The MA was notified pursuant to Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019 between 19 May 2025 and 9 June 2025. Council received 65 submissions. In accordance with s 4.55(2)(d) Council has considered the submissions made. The submissions comprised concerns regarding bulk and scale, character inconsistency with Original DA, intensification of non-compliance, overdevelopment, property values reduction of community open space, streetscape, traffic and visual and acoustic privacy. The matters raised in the submissions have been considered by the parties, and the MA, as amended, has improved outcomes on the matters raised in the submissions.
In accordance with the Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019, re-exhibition of the amended MA was conducted from 3 December 2025 to 10 December 2025. Nine submissions were received, and were considered. I attended on Site and viewed the surrounding developments at the commencement of the conciliation conference on 3 September 2025. I also heard oral submissions from several objectors. The Court received one late written submission, and it was also considered. The amendments to the MA, as noted by the Court in [37] below, arose as a result of negotiations between the parties in relation to the objectors’ submissions and Council’s issues.
Section 4.55(3) of the EPA Act requires the Court to take into consideration the relevant matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act, and the reasons given by the Court for the grant of the original DA. The parties have considered the reasons set out in Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Pty Ltd ATF The Trustee for Platinum Property Advisors No 1 Trust v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWLEC 1675, upholding DA/2020/0393 (Class 1 Application, Tab 2).
The parties agree that the Applicant has complied with ss 100 and 102 of the EPAR as follows:
The MA complies with the content required by the regulation;
Subsection 100(3) requires a BASIX certificate – an updated BASIX Certificate no 1061176M_08 dated 25 November 2025 is included in the s 34(3) Agreement Bundle, Tab 8.
Section 102 – Modification Applications for Residential Apartment Development Consents – the MA is required to be accompanied by a statement by a qualified designer. A copy of this statement, consistent with the design as modified, is by Maurice Beraldo, Director of BDAI Pty Ltd dated 27 November 2025 and included in the s 34(3) Agreement Bundle under Tab 6.
The relevant clauses of the WLEP 2011 are:
Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings. The site is governed by a 8.5m height limit. The Original DA approved a height of 12.2m. The MA increased the height to 13.5m, i.e. 1.3m above the approved height. The height exceedances are not consistent over the site due to the sloped nature of the site and vary according to location. Whilst a cl 4.6 variation request under WLEP 2011 is not required, justification for the non-compliance is set out below.
The additional apartments with frontages to Lockwood Avenue have been appropriately setback so that they do not appear as a prominent building element when viewed form the streetscape.
The additional apartments have been designed and orientated to minimise their visual impact as viewed from surrounding residential properties with the apartments not giving rise to unacceptable privacy or solar access outcomes.
The additional apartments are located within the approved building footprint, and will not cause any adverse impact on the scenic quality of Warringah’s coastal and bush environments; and
From an external impact and amenity perspective, the parties agree that the non-compliant component of the building results in a minor degree of additional overshadowing that will not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the communal open space or proposed piazza area.
The proposed additional level is located within a portion of the site that is fully capable of being able to accommodate the height without having any unreasonable impacts on the adjacent area, the lower density residential zone and maintains a compliant degree of solar access.
The parties agree that the non-compliance is fully justifiable on planning and urban design grounds.
I am not required to consider the merit issues of the MA, and I have not done so.
As set out above, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
The Northern Beaches Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved, under s 113(1) of the EPAR, to the Applicant amending Modification Application Mod2025/0228 in accordance with the documents listed below: