Steve Wu Architects Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council

Development consent should be granted

1. For the reasons expressed above, each of the contentions raised by the Council on the appeal have been adequately addressed through additional information and amendments to the development application. As such, there is no reason advanced that could form a basis upon which development consent should be refused. The proposed development is permissible on the site and complies with the relevant development standard concerning minimum lot size. It also complies with the relevant provisions in the KLEP and the SEPP B&C concerning the protection of biodiversity, riparian areas and water quality. I am satisfied that the matters raised by the objectors have been satisfactorily addressed, and that the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties throughout the course of the hearing have been met.
2. Further, the proposed VPA provides a lawful manner in which interests in land can be dedicated to Council and I am satisfied that the offer to enter into a VPA meets the requirements of s 7.4 of the EPA Act, including that it provides for the dedication of land and the carrying out of works, and the provision of a material public benefit, to be used for a public purpose. The Court has the power, pursuant to s 7.7(3) of the EPA Act, to impose a condition of consent that requires the developer to enter into the VPA in the terms of the offer made by the developer. The parties agree that this can be done by a deferred commencement condition, pursuant to s 4.16(3) of the EPA Act, and that the requirement to notify the proposed VPA, pursuant to s 7.5 of the EPA Act and s 204 of the EPA Regulation 2021, can be met following the grant of consent and prior to entry into the VPA (see Omaya Investments Pty Limited v Dean Street Holdings Pty Limited (No 5) [2020] NSWLEC 9 at [270]-[272]).
3. It is therefore appropriate to grant development consent in the circumstances, subject to the conditions agreed by the parties.