RRX Macquarie Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council

Legislation Cited: Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7, 8.15
Fisheries Management Act 199Mo 14.04.2025 No infotype 0007 record (Planned Working Time) on 20250414No infotype 0007 record (Planned Working Time) on 202504144
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Water Management Act 2000
Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021, cll 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.1, 5.1A, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10, 6.14, 6.16, Sch 5
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.60, Ch 6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 15C, 16, 19, 21, 148, Pt 2 Div 1
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7
State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, ss 2.48, 2.99

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: RRX Macquarie Pty Ltd ACN 641 416 668 (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)

Representation: Counsel:
G Pavlis (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C McFadzean (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Fortis Law (Applicant)
Cumberland Council S(Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/484060

Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA2024/0613 seeking consent to demolish existing structures and to construct a five storey mixed use development (Proposed Development) at 22-24 Joyce Street, Pendle Hill legally described as Lot A in DP 387501 and Lot 40 in DP 14088 (the Site).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 4 March, 2 and 9 April 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. The Respondent has approved, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the Applicant amending the DA in accordance with the amended plans and documents as set out in note 2(a) to the s 34 Agreement (Amended DA).

4. The Amended DA was not renotified as the Respondent formed the view that the amendments to the development did not increase its environmental impacts, in accordance with Sch 1 cl 23 of the EPA Act.

5. The parties’ experts agree that all contentions raised in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) have been resolved by the preparation of the amended plans and documents referred to at [49], and the agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A.

6. 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 upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

7. 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.

8. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

9. 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 cl 4.6 of the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan 2021 (CLEP) to vary a development standard, other various provisions of the CLEP, the terms of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) and the terms of Ch 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP) regarding stormwater and flood planning. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in a jurisdictional statement provided to the Court and orally during the conciliation conference.

10. The Site is zoned E1 Local Centre pursuant to the CLEP and in relation to permissibility the parties explain as follows:

11. The coffee shop is defined as a ‘restaurant or café’ which is a subset of food and drink premises, which in turn is a subset of retail premises and then commercial premises. Commercial premises, inclusive of a restaurant or café, are permissible with consent in the E1 zone.

12. The laundromat falls within the definition of business premises which, also, are a subset of commercial premises and are permissible with consent in the E1 zone.

13. The office premises are a subset of commercial premises and are permissible with consent.

14. All residential units satisfy the definition of ‘shop top housing’, while units 1, 5, 6 and 7 may also be characterised as affordable housing. Shop top housing and affordable housing are both permitted with consent in the E1 zone.

15. Demolition is permitted with consent pursuant to cl 2.7 of the CLEP and the proposed basement excavation earthworks is permitted with development consent pursuant to cl 6.2 of the CLEP.

16. Part 2 Div 1 of the Housing SEPP applies, and the parties note the s 15C criteria that:

“(1)(a) residential development in the form of shop top housing is permitted under the Cumberland Local Environmental Plan – see [10].

(1)(b) The floor area of affordable units 1, 5, 6, and 7 totals 321.57m2, representing 21.55% (being more than 10%) of the gross floor area (being 1,492.08m2).

(1)(c)(i) The site forms part of the Central River City, being a subset of the Six Cities Region, and is in an accessible area in that it is 190m (i.e. less than 800m) walking distance of a public entrance to Pendle Hill rail station.

(2A) The site is not within an accelerated Transport Orientated Development precinct.”

13. Based upon the 21.55% affordable housing component, s 16 of the Housing SEPP grants floor space ratio and building height bonuses of 30%, resulting in the permissible floor space ratio increasing from 2.0:1 to 2.6:1 and the permissible building height increasing from 17m to 22.1m.

14. The Proposed Development proposes a maximum height of building (HOB) of 24.2m. Clause 4.3 of the CLEP provides for a maximum HOB of 17m, but that development standard is subject to a bonus under s 16 of the Housing SEPP, resulting in the Site being subject to a maximum HOB of 22.1m. The area of the building exceeding the 22.1m HOB development standard is confined to the lift overrun. The Applicant relies on a written request prepared by Think Planners dated October 2024 (HOB Written Request) to justify the contravention of the HOB development standard pursuant to cl 4.6 of the CLEP. The parties agree that the submission justifies a relaxation of the building height control.

15. The Court is satisfied that the HOB Written Request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in cl 4.3 of the CLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of CLEP, firstly because it is demonstrated at page 10 that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding the contravention. Secondly it is demonstrated at page 11 that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

16. The proposed floor space ratio (FSR) is 2.59:1 which complies with the applicable FSR development standard of 2.6:1 pursuant to s 16 of the Housing SEPP which overrides cl 4.4 of the CLEP which otherwise would provide for an FSR development standard of 2.0:1.

17. The site is not marked on the following maps in the CLEP:

18. the Additional Permitted Uses Map (cl 2.5);

19. the Land Reservation Acquisition Map (cll 5.1 and 5.1A);

20. the Acid Sulfate Soils Map (cl 6.1);

21. the Foreshore Building Line Map (cl 6.3);

22. the Biodiversity Map (cl 6.5);

23. the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map (cl 6.6);

24. the Site Specific Provisions Map (cl 6.10);

25. the Design Excellence Map (cl 6.14); or

26. the Key Sites Map (cl 6.16).

27. The Site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The Site is within proximity to a heritage listed property identified as item I231, being the Pendle Hill Railway Station group of buildings which is listed as an item of local significance under Sch 5 of the CLEP. The Council is satisfied that given the physical separation, the heritage impact on the railway group will be negligible and as such, the Council did not require the preparation of a heritage management document: cl 5.10(5), CLEP.

28. Various essential services must be either available or adequate arrangements must have been made to make them available to the Site prior to being able to grant consent to the Proposed Development: cl 6.4, CLEP. The Council is satisfied that water supply, sewage disposal, electricity supply, stormwater drainage and suitable road access are available or can be made available. In respect of stormwater drainage, the Applicant has provided owner’s consent for the creation of an easement from Strata Plan No. 98080 dated 20 March 2025, being the property to the rear at 97-99 Stapleton Street, Pendle Hill.

29. The Site is marked on the Salinity Map as ‘Potential Moderate Salinity Land’. In relation to cl 6.9(4) of the CLEP, the court can be satisfied that the basement 2 level at Australian Height Data (AHD) 37.75 will avoid any potential significant adverse environmental impact with regards to salinity, meaning that no specific design measures are warranted to avoid salinity impacts.

30. Section 19 of the Housing SEPP contains non-discretionary development standards. Those standards and the development’s performance in comparison to the standards are identified below:

| Element | Standard | Proposal | Satisfaction | | Site area | 450m2 minimum | 579.2m2 | Achieved | | Landscaped area | 173.76m2 (being 30% of the site area) | 0m2 (being 0% of the site area) | Not achieved | | Parking for affordable housing | 2 spaces (0.5 spaces x 4 x 2 bedroom units) | 4 spaces, total, for all housing | Achieved | | Parking for non affordable housing | 2 spaces (0.5 spaces x 2 x 1 bedroom units + 1 spaces x 1 x 2 bedroom unit) | | Internal unit area | Units 1, 5, 6, and 7 - 75m2 | 77.58m2 – 84.04m2 | Achieved |

22. The Applicant relies on a written request prepared by Think Planner dated 11 April 2025, to justify the contravention of the landscaping development standard of s 19 of the Housing SEPP, pursuant to cl 4.6 of the CLEP (Landscaping Written Request). The Respondent is satisfied that submission satisfies the requirements under cl 4.6 to facilitate the granting of consent.

23. The Court is satisfied that the Landscaping Written Request seeking to justify the contravention of the landscaping development standard in s 19(2)(b) of the Housing SEPP, has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of CLEP. Firstly, because it is demonstrated at page 8 that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the Proposed Development remains consistent with the intent of the Housing SEPP notwithstanding the contravention. Secondly it is demonstrated at page 9 that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

24. Non-discretionary development standards for deep soil and solar access under s 19(2)(c) and (d) do not apply by virtue of s 19(3) of the Housing SEPP.

25. Section 21 of the Housing SEPP requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development will include the affordable housing component required under s 16, and that it will be managed by a registered community housing provider for a period of at least 15 years commencing on the day an occupation certificate is issued. Section 21 is satisfied by virtue of condition 123 of the agreed conditions at Annexure A.

26. Section 148 of the Housing SEPP contains non-discretionary development standards. Those standards and the development’s performance in comparison to the standards are identified below:

| Element | Standard | Proposal | Satisfaction | | Car parking | Meet or exceed with recommended minimum at ADG part 3J (i.e. 9 spaces based on the Cumberland DCP) | 4 spaces | Not achieved | | Internal unit area | Units 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 - 75m2 Units 2, 4 – 50m2 | Units 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 – 77.58m2 – 88.43m2 Units 2, 4 – 50.14m2 – 50.22m2 | Achieved | | Ceiling height | 2.7m | 2.7m | Achieved |

27. The s 148 car parking non-discretionary development standard differs from the car parking non-discretionary development standard under s 19, notwithstanding that both standards apply to the same (residential) component of the development. The Applicant relies on a written request prepared by Think Planner dated April 2025, to justify the contravention of the development standard s 148 pursuant to cl 4.6 of the CLEP (Parking Written Request). The Respondent is satisfied that submission satisfies the requirements under cl 4.6 to facilitate the granting of consent.

28. The Court is satisfied that the Parking Written Request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard in s 148 of the Housing SEPP, has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by cl 4.6(3) of CLEP. Firstly, because it is demonstrated at page 10 that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the Proposed Development remains consistent with the intent of the Housing SEPP notwithstanding the contravention. Secondly it is demonstrated at pages 10 and 11 that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention.

29. Section 4.6(1) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development unless:

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

30. The Applicant relies on a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) prepared by Econ Environmental dated 7 February 2025 and a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) prepared by Econ Environmental dated 7 February 2025. The DSI concludes at page 5 that notwithstanding the presence of contaminants in the form of lead and asbestos, the Site can be made suitable for its proposed commercial mixed use development including low density residential, subject to a number of specified recommendations including the preparation and implementation of a Remedial Action Plan, a Hazardous Building Materials Assessment and that any waste material from the Site, including excavated material, being classified and disposed of to an appropriate waste facility.

31. The Site is located within 5m of a pole supporting an exposed overhead electricity power line and as required by s 2.48 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, the Respondent provided written notice to Endeavour Energy. Comments were received, and considered, and the parties explain that the objections raised are resolved by condition 118 of the agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A which requires removal of the power pole forward of the Site.

32. The Proposed Development involves 2m of cut within 25m of a rail corridor and as required by s 2.99 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, the Respondent provided written notice to Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW). Comments were received, and considered, in response to the effect that TfNSW grant concurrence, subject to the imposition of consent conditions.

33. A rail corridor is on the opposite side of Joyce Street and the development contains residential accommodation. Section 2.100(3) of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, provides that consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that an LAeq level of 35dB(A) is not exceeded in a bedroom at any time between 10.00pm and 7.00am and that an LAeq of 40dB(A) is not exceeded anywhere else in the residential accommodation (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway). In order to satisfy this prerequisite, the Applicant relies on a Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics dated 22 October 2024 filed with the Class 1 Application which sets out an assessment of rail noise and vibration measures from page 10 and concludes at page 20 that based on “the noise impact study conducted, the proposed development is assessed to comply with the SEPP (Transport and Infrastructure) noise criteria with recommendations from this report.”

34. The Site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment area and the Site is mapped by council as being flood liable land: s 6.5, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP. Accordingly, the terms of Ch 6 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP, and cll 5.21 and 6.7 of the CLEP include a number of jurisdictional prerequisites to be satisfied regarding stormwater and flood planning.

35. The Applicant relies on the following documents to satisfy various matters relating to water and flooding:

36. Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners filed with the Class 1 Application at Tab 8, page 23;

37. Flood Impact Study prepared by Deboke Engineering Consultants dated 23 October 2024 filed with the Class 1 Application;

38. Stormwater Plans prepared by Deboke Engineering Consultants dated 17 March 2025; and

39. The development is a BASIX affected development pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. The updated BASIX certificate dated 4 April 2025 demonstrates compliance with targets for water, thermal performance, energy, and materials.

40. In relation to stormwater management the consent authority can be satisfied of the matter listed at cl 6.7(2) of the CLEP because:

41. the extent of water permeable surfaces are within reasonable expectations;

42. it is not practicable to provide on-site stormwater retention for use as an alternate supply to mains water; and

43. significant adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland and receiving waters will not arise and to the extent of any impact, can be mitigated by the provision of sediment and erosion controls during the earthworks and construction stages.

44. Council’s flood mapping an extract of which is reproduced at paragraph 76 of the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 24 January 2025, shows the Site 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood level skirting, but beyond, the Site’s rear boundary and the flood planning level (comprising that 1% AEP level plus a freeboard of 500mm) covering, approximately, the rear 40% of the Site. In relation to the consideration listed at cl 5.21(3), the parties’ position is that:

45. impacts of the development on projected changes to flood behaviour as a result of climate change are negligible and non-determinative;

46. the design and scale of the building in the context of flood planning is satisfactory;

47. evacuation can be safely accommodated;

48. flooding impacts and coastal erosion do not warrant the ability to modify, relocate or remove the proposed building.

49. Accordingly, pursuant to cl 5.21(2) of the CLEP, the Court can be satisfied that the Proposed Development:

50. is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land;

51. will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties;

52. will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood;

53. incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood; and

54. subject to conditions for sediment and erosion control measures during demolition and construction works, will not adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses.

55. In relation to the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP, s 6.6 provides for Water quality and quantity. It is the parties’ position is that:

56. subject to the installation and maintenance of sediment controls during building works, the development will have a neutral effect on the quality of water entering a waterway.

57. the Proposed Development:

(a) will not have an adverse impact on water flow in a natural waterbody; (b) is unlikely to increase stormwater runoff from the site in any significant or unacceptable manner; (c) does not incorporate on-site stormwater retention, infiltration or reuse; (d) will have no impact on the level and quality of the water table.

3. cumulative environmental impacts from the Proposed Development on the regulated catchment are negligible.

4. having regard to the extent of excavation proposed, no specific measures are required protect the quality and quantity of groundwater.

5. For these reasons, the court can be satisfied pursuant to s 6.6(2) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP that the Proposed Development ensures the effect on the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral, and has negligible and satisfactory water flow impacts for a natural waterbody.

6. In relation to the considerations listed in s 6.7(1) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP which relates to Aquatic ecology, the parties’ position is that:

7. to the extent of any direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation, the impact is minor and not determinative of the application.

8. the Proposed Development:

(a) does not involve the clearing of riparian vegetation; (b) will not involve sedimentation of a natural waterbody or erosion of land abutting a natural waterway; (c) will not have an adverse impact on wetlands; (d) will not impact aquatic ecology and therefore does not require safeguards and rehabilitation measures; (e) does not adjoin a natural waterbody.

42. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.7(2), the court can be satisfied that:

43. any direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation will be kept to the minimum necessary for the carrying out of the development;

44. the development will not have a direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on aquatic reserves;

45. no approval or permit is required under the Water Management Act 2000 or the Fisheries Management Act 1994;

46. the land does not abut a natural waterbody;

47. there will be no adverse impact on wetlands.

48. The parties have considered the impact of the development on periodic flooding pursuant to s 6.8(1) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP and the parties’ position is that the Proposed Development will have no impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems. Accordingly, the court can be satisfied pursuant to s 6.8(2) that the Proposed Development will not:

49. result in a release of pollutants in the event of a flood; or

50. have an adverse impact on the natural recession of floodwaters into wetlands and other riverine ecosystems.

51. In relation to the considerations listed in s 6.9(1) of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP which provides for recreation and public access, the parties’ position is that the development will have no impact on recreational land uses in the Sydney Harbour catchment and has no impact on public access to and around foreshores. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.9(2), the Court can be satisfied that the Proposed Development has no impact on public access to and from natural waterbodies for recreational purposes, does not involve new or existing points of public access to natural waterbodies, and that the land does not form part of a foreshore of a natural waterbody.

52. In relation to s 6.10 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP which provides for total catchment management, the parties’ position is that the Proposed Development will not have an adverse environmental impact for adjacent and downstream local government areas.

53. Pendle Creek is approximately 300m to the west of the Site and is thus not land within 100m of a natural waterbody (s 6.11, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP). The Site is also not within a riverine scenic area (s 6.12, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP), a Hawkesbury-Nepean conservation area sub-catchment (s 6.13, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP) or the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment (s 6.60, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP) and does not involve temporary use of land (s 6.14, Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP).

54. 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 and as set out in this judgment.

55. 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.

Notations

49. The Court notes:

50. The Respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved under section 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the Applicant amending Development Application No. DA 2024/0613 in accordance with the following amended plans and reports:

| | Document | Ref No. | Prepared by | Ver. | Date |

| 1. | Architectural Plans | | Cover Page 1 | - | Design Corp Architects | - | - | | Cover Page 2 | - | Design Corp Architects | - | 24 Mar 2025 | | Details | 3 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | LEP Controls | 4 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Site Context Analysis | 5 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Site Plan | 6 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Basement Floor Plan | 7 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Ground Floor & L1 | 8 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Level 2 & 3 | 9 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Level 4 & Roof | 10 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | 3D Perspectives | 11 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Elevations | 12 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Sections | 13 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Streetscape | 14 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Shadows – Jun | 15 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Adaptable Unit | 16 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | Materials & Finishes | 17 | Design Corp Architects | I | 12 Mar 2025 | | 2. | Landscape Plan | | Cover, Section, Details | B01 | Plandrew | b | 17 Feb 2025 | | Ground & Rooftop Landscape Plan | B02 | Plandrew | b | 17 Feb 2025 | | 3. | Civil Plans | | Cover Page | - | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | - | | Specifications Sheet | S101 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | General Arrangement Plan | S200 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Slope Analysis Plan | S300 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Bulk Earthwork Plan | S301 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Driveway Long Sections | S400 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Council Standard Drawings Sheet 1 of 3 | S500 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Council Standard Drawings Sheet 2 of 3 | S501 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | Council Standard Drawings Sheet 3 of 3 | S502 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 12 Mar 2025 | | 4. | Stormwater Plans | | Cover Page | S100 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Specifications Sheet | S101 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Basement 2 Plan | S200 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Basement 1 Plan | S201 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Subfloor | S202 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Ground Floor Plan | S203 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Roof Plan | S208 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Detail Sheet 1 of 2 | S300 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Detail Sheet 2 of 2 | S301 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | Erosin and Sediment Control Plan | S400 | Deboke Engineering Consultants | 02 | 17 Mar 2025 | | 5. | Addendum Traffic & Parking Report | Hemanote | - | 28 Feb 2025 | | 6. | Green Travel Plan | Hemanote | - | 19 Mar 2025 | | 7. | Noise Impact Assessment | Rodney Stevens Acoustics | 2 | 03 Mar 2025 | | 8. | Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Report | Think Planners | - | 14 Mar 2025 | | 9. | Operational Waste Management Plan | WasteAudit | - | Feb 2025 | | 10. | Detailed Site Investigation | ECON Environmental | B | 07 Feb 2025 | | 11. | Remedial Action Plan | ECON Environmental | B | 07 Feb 2025 | | 12. | Demolition & Construction Waste Management Plan | WasteAudit | - | Feb 2025 | | 13. | Easement Consent | Strata Plan No. 98080 | - | 20 Mar 2025 | | 14. | BASIX Certificate | Sustain Space | - | 04 Apr 2025 | | 15. | Clause 4.6 Variation - Parking | Think Planners | - | 07 Apr 2025 | | 16. | Clause 4.6 Variation - Landscaping | Think Planners | - | 11 Apr 2025 |

Orders

50. The Court orders:

51. The Appeal is upheld.

52. Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs “thrown away” as a result of the amendments to the development application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders.

53. Development consent is granted to development application DA 2024/0613, as amended, for demolition of existing structures, tree removal and the construction of a mixed use development containing a restaurant or café, laundromat, 3 offices and 7 shop top housing residential apartments of which 4 are provided for affordable housing at Lot A in DP 387501 and Lot 40 in DP 14088, being No. 22-24 Joyce Street Pendle Hill be approved, subject to the conditions in the annexure marked A.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (513332, pdf)

*******