//
[2025] NSWLEC 1565
General information, not legal advice.
Land and Environment Court (NSW)
2025-08-07
Espinosa C
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: 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.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Stix Holdings Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1565
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 July 2025
Date of orders: 07 August 2025
Decision date: 07 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs ‘thrown away’ in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) as a result of the amendment to the development application in the sum of thirty two thousand five hundred ($32,500) and the Court notes that the parties agree that this will be in satisfaction of all costs orders made in the proceedings.
(3) Development Application No. DA0330/22 for alterations and additions to the existing shed structure and for change of use to a restaurant, including construction of an associated carparking area at 600 Laws Farm Road, Cumberland Reach is determined by the grant of development consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – use of existing outbuilding as a restaurant – tree removal – road re-alignment – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), ss 7.2, 7.3, 7.7, Pt 7
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.16, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34
Biodiversity and Conservation Regulation 2017 (NSW)
Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 4.3, 5.10, 5.21, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.7
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 4.9, 9.5 (repealed), Chs 4, 9 (repealed)
State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Water Catchments) 2022
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, ss 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 4.6
Texts Cited: Community Participation Plan
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Stix Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 112 777 947 (Applicant)
Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)
D Robertson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/452853
Publication restriction: Nil
At an earlier directions hearing, the Court listed the matter for a two-day hearing on 10 and 11 July 2025, commencing on-site at 10:30am and returning to Court. An order was also made on 19 June 2025 for a traffic joint expert report to be filed by 27 June 2025.
On 2 July 2025, the Civil and Traffic Joint Expert Report prepared by Chris Palmer, Hamie Yahyaei, Andrew Croghan, and Matthew McCarthy was filed and at pp 6 to 7 they helpfully set out the proposal which I reproduce below:
“• Alterations to an existing shed to provide a destination restaurant that has the following characteristics:
o Operating hours of 12pm to 3:30pm & 5:30pm-12 am, 5 days per week (Closed Monday & Tuesday);
o Maximum of 150 guests daily and at any one time on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday – e.g. 75 guests for the lunch service/75 guests for the dinner service, 50 guests for the lunch service/100 guests for the dinner service, 0 guests for the lunch service/150 guests for the dinner service, etc
o Maximum of 40 guests daily and at any one time on a Wednesday & Thursday
o The site will employ 5-15 staff to support the use;
o Seeks to provide restaurant guests with a ‘farm to table’ experience whilst promoting sustainable agriculture and the Hawksbury Region;
o All guests will be required to book in advance;
• The removal of selected trees are sought to support the proposed car park and the APZ;
• A new outdoor car park which has considered tree protection zones (TPZ) and comprises 72 car parking spaces, plus 3 parking spaces capable of accommodating 6m long mini-vans (~12 seats)
• 2 accessible car parking spaces located directly outside the subject building
• Informal truck parking area accommodating up to a 6.4m small rigid vehicle (SRV); and
• Realignment of the paper road;
• Coaches/Buses prohibited;
• An APZ to be established around the subject building, in accordance with RFS requirements.
• The proposed operating days, maximum patronage and staff numbers are as follows:
o Monday & Tuesday: Closed
o Wednesday-Thursday: Maximum 40 patrons daily & 6 staff
o Friday, Saturday, Sunday: Maximum 150 guests daily & 15 staff
• The upgrade of the unsealed section of Laws Farm Road, between Ski Lodge Road and the subject site, which is approximately 2km in length and approximately 3.5m wide for the vast majority of that length, with passing opportunities available on the grass edges of the road at selected locations.
• The proposed upgrade works to Laws Farm Road, as indicated on the CJP Road Concept Plans before the Court, comprises a typical 6.0m wide gravel road for approximately 35% of the 2km length, allowing two-way traffic flow, resulting in the loss of a select number of trees along the road edge, reducing to 4.0m wide single lane sections at selected points.
• The proposed upgrade works to Laws Farm Road, as indicated on the Civil Plans prepared by GDS, also comprises a typical 6.0m wide gravel road, however, now for at least 53% of the 2km length, allowing two-way traffic flow, resulting in the loss of additional trees along the road edge, reducing to 4.0m wide single lane sections at selected points.
• 7.0m-7.5m wide two-way sections of road on selected bends”
The hearing commenced on site on 10 July 2025 and the Court heard from a neighbour regarding traffic and bushfire concerns. At the conclusion of the on site view, I directed the parties’ expert Traffic and Civil Engineers to further confer and to express an opinion as to whether the further amended plans resolve the issues either as they are or by conditions of consent. I also directed the Respondent to file a set of Draft/Proposed Conditions of consent by 10 am Friday 11 July 2025 being the time to which the hearing was adjourned after the site view.
On the second day of the hearing the parties advised that all merit matters had been resolved.
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 11 July 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 upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.
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 parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.
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 the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP), Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) (BC Act), State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP), and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP). The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed jurisdictional statement provided to the Court.
The Applicant is the registered proprietor of the Site and provided relevant owners consent to lodgement of the Development Application.
The Site is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under to the HLEP and the proposed use of a restaurant is permissible with consent.
The Development Application was originally notified between 28 October 2022 to 11 November 2022 in accordance with the Respondent’s Community Participation Plan. The parties agree that as the amended development application has significantly reduced its environmental impact by limiting native vegetation clearing and confining works to previously disturbed areas, formal renotification of the amended Development Application was not required.
The Site is subject to a maximum height of 10m pursuant to cl 4.3 of the HLEP and the Proposed Development Application has a compliant maximum building height of 6m.
The Site is not subject to a maximum floor space ratio pursuant to cl 4.4 of the HLEP.
The Site is not listed as a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. However, the Site is located in the vicinity of a heritage listed item being Monument to Aboriginal People – local significance – Item I372 under the HLEP. The parties rely on the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Think Planners dated 28 June 2022 (SEE), filed with the Class 1 at p 35, and the Respondent’s Assessment Report filed with the Respondent’s Bundle of Documents at p 14, and the parties agree that there is sufficient physical separation between the Site and the identified heritage item to ensure that the curtilage and heritage significance of the item will not be affected by the Proposed Development. Accordingly, cl 5.10(5) of the HLEP does not require the preparation of a heritage management document, and no further heritage assessment is necessary.
The Site is located within the Flood Planning Area, specifically the Flood Planning Level (FPL) associated with the 1% AEP flood level plus 0.5m freeboard and pursuant to cl 5.21(2) of the HLEP the consent authority, must be satisfied that the development:
(a) is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land, and
(b) will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and
(c) 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, and
(d) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood, and
(e) 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.
The parties rely on the Flood Emergency Response Plan (FERP) prepared by Martens dated 17 May 2024 to support the state of satisfaction that the Proposed Development is compatible with the flood function and behaviour of the land, as it is situated in an area with low hydraulic hazard (H1 or H2 classifications) and allows for safe evacuation in accordance with Council and SES requirements. The risk to life is to be managed through clear evacuation triggers, signage, and a FERP tailored to the restaurant use. The FERP also takes into account future climate change and includes measures to reduce environmental impact in a flood.
The Site is identified as part Class 1, part Class 3, part Class 4, and part Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map, specifically, the proposed car parking area is located within Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils. Pursuant to cl 6.1(2) of the HLEP, an acid sulfate soils management plan (ASMP) must be provided to the consent authority prior to consent being granted for development on Class 5 land within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 land for works that are below 5m Australian Height Datum and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1m Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 land. The parties explain that an ASMP is not required because the proposed car parking area is unlikely to extend beyond 2m below the natural ground surface. Further, the nature and scale of the Proposed Development means that it is unlikely to lead to any changes in the water table or the movement of local groundwater.
Consent is sought for earthworks pursuant to cl 6.2 of the HLEP and the parties have considered the matters set out in cl 6.2(3) of the HLEP.
The Site has available the relevant essential services pursuant to cl 6.7 of the HLEP, such as water and electricity. Adequate arrangements have been made to make available when required, for the disposal and management of sewage, stormwater drainage or on-site conservation as set out in the Onsite Wastewater Management Assessment Report dated 17 May 2024 prepared by Martens and Associates Pty Ltd. The provision of suitable road access is part of the Proposed Development.
The Site is identified as “Connectivity” and “Significant Vegetation” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map and cl 6.4(4) of the HLEP provides that development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that—
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided by adopting feasible alternatives—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.
“The BDAR concluded that no threatened flora were found, and the following threatened fauna and ecological communities were found:
(a) Threatened fauna:
i. Eastern Osprey
ii. Eastern Coastal Free-Tailed Bat
iii. Large Bent-winged Bat
iv. Large-eared Pied Bat
v. Eastern Cave Bat (possible recording)
(b) Endangered ecological communities:
i..Shale – Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion (PCT 3321).
ii. River – Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Bsin and South East Corner Bioregions (PCT 4058).
The Development Application will see the impact of 0.99ha of native vegetation, which includes impacts to four (4) different vegetation units including the following (PCT below refers to Plant Community Types):
a. PCT 3111 – Sydney Hinterland Grey Myrtle Riparian Forest – 0.9ha impacted
b. PCT 2231 – Cumberland Shale-Sandstone Ironbark Forest – 0.14ha impacted
c. PCT 3616 – Sydney Hinterland Grey Gum Transition Forest – 0.22ha impacted
d. PCT 4058 – Sydney Hinterland Red Gum Riverflat Forest (including derived native grassland) – 0.06ha impacted
Recommendations to mitigate the impact include:
a. Removal of trees are to be undertaken in the presence of either a project ecologist or project arborist to ensure only those proposed for removal are removed, and there is no incidental damage to nearby trees intended for retention.
b. Tree limbing for the Laws Farm Road upgrade and passing bays is to be undertaken in the presence of the project arborist.
c. Due to the potential for koalas using the area, additional feed tree species have been added to the restoration numbers.
d. To limit the potential for vehicle collisions with wildlife, the speed limit for Laws Farm Road should be no more than 40 km/hr. Specific revegetation works around the carpark area are detailed in the Vegetation Management Plan prepared by Travers Bushfire and Ecology (see Tab 5 of the Further Amended Application). Revegetation works are to include hedge planting along the edges of the carpark at selected locations to reduce light impacts on adjoining bushland.
The measures have been implemented in the Vegetation Management Plan, and include tree protection, fencing and signage to restrict public access, fauna management and revegetation zones. The ecological experts agree the mitigation satisfies clause 6.4 of the LEP and BC Act (see paragraph 7 of Supplementary Ecology Joint Report). Pursuant to clause 6.4(4)(b), the development has been designed, sited and will be managed to minimise any significant adverse environmental impact by locating built elements in previously disturbed areas, reducing vegetation clearing through redesign, and implementing targeted restoration and biodiversity offset measures as outlined in the BDAR and Vegetation Management Plan.
The development avoids severance of core habitat areas and maintains ecological connectivity across the site by using passing bays instead of full road widening and limiting clearing to fragmented or previously disturbed vegetation (see pages 9-10 of the Joint Expert Report for Ecology).
The BDAR confirms that the development will not result in a significant residual impact on threatened species or communities, and that the proposed mitigation and offset measures are adequate to maintain the site’s ecological integrity in accordance with clause 6.4(4) (see pages 44-45 of the BDAR).”
Part 7 of the BC Act regulates the biodiversity assessment requirements for various types of development approvals under the EPA Act. Related to this assessment is the Biodiversity Offset Scheme, which provides a framework for offsetting unavoidable impacts on biodiversity prescribed under Pt 6 of the BC Act as well as the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (NSW).(BC Regulation).
Under s 7.7(2) of the BC Act, if a proposed development is deemed “likely to significantly affect threatened species”, the application for development consent is to be accompanied by a biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR).
Section 7.2 of the BC Act thereafter provides a series of triggers for when a proposed development is deemed “likely to significantly affect threatened species”. In relation to development which is “likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities” (s 7.2(1)(a), BC Act), the BDAR prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology dated 9 July 2025 confirms the development application minimises impacts on native vegetation and habitat, with an estimated impact of 0.08ha cleared of PCT 3622 - Sydney Hinterland Yellow Bloodwood Woodland (p 81). This estimated impact area is below the minimum area.
In relation to development which “exceeds the biodiversity offset scheme threshold” (s 7.2(1)(b), BC Act) the Proposed Development is not considered to exceed the biodiversity offsets threshold because the proposed clearing of 0.08ha of native vegetation is less than the area clearing threshold of 0.5ha pursuant to the BC Regulation.
In relation to development that “involves the clearing of native vegetation on land included on the Biodiversity Values Map published”, the Site does not contain land included on the Biodiversity Values Map: ss 7.2(1)(c) and 7.3, BC Act.
There are three entities identified as at potential risk of serious and irreversible impact (SAII) by the Proposed Development being the Shale Sandstone Transition Forest and two threatened microbat species. The parties’ ecology experts agree that the Proposed Development will not result in a SAII on these identified species due to the proposed mitigation and restoration activities: Supplementary Joint Expert Ecological Report, par 6.
The Supplementary Joint Expert Ecological Report prepared by the parties’ expert ecologists filed 11 July 2025 confirms at pars 8 and 9 that the Proposed Development remains consistent with the RU2 zone objectives because it is supported by increased revegetation and bushland regeneration and concludes that while some ecological impact occurs, the impacts have been adequately mitigated. In any event, the BDAR has been assessed by the parties’ expert ecologists who consider the BDAR to adequately assess the impacts of the Proposed Development, which are deemed acceptable: Joint Expert Ecological Report filed 16 April 2025, p 16 and Supplementary Joint Expert Ecological Report, p 6.
The Site is located within the Hawkesbury Local Government Area, which forms part of the Central Coast Koala Management Area. Accordingly, Ch 4 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP applies to the Site. The Respondent has assessed the Proposed Development in accordance with the considerations set out in s 4.9 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP because the area of the Site is greater than 1ha and there is no approved koala plan of management applying to the land. The parties explain that a Koala Assessment Report, prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology dated 16 April 2025 confirms that:
No koalas were observed during nocturnal or diurnal surveys, nor was there any evidence of koala activity;
Notwithstanding the presence of the Koala-use tree species and the Site therefore qualifying as a core Koala habitat, it does not appear that koalas are currently occupying the available koala habitat; and
Mitigation measures have been provided in a VMP to assist, enhance and retain the vegetation.
In addition, the parties explain that the following has been undertaken to avoid or minimise the impacts on koalas:
The carpark design has been located in an existing mostly cleared area minimising the loss of vegetation and koala habitat;
Locating the road widening in order to avoid all koala feed tree species of Forest Red Gum, particularly mature individuals, which are less locally represented than Grey Gums due to historical clearing along the river foreshores and floodplain; and
Minimised the impact on asset protection zones and trees to be removed within selected retention of koala feed trees where possible.
The Site is identified as being within the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment.
The Development Application was lodged and not finally determined before the commencement of the State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Water Catchments) 2022, The savings provisions under s 6.65 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP applies therefore the applicable provisions are contained in the now repealed Ch 9 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP titled “Hawkesbury-Nepean River” and which incorporates the provisions from the former State Regional Environmental Plan No 20 - Hawkesbury-Nepean River to protect the environment of this river system.
The SEE at p 30, addresses each of the specific planning policies and recommended strategies from s 9.5, Pt 9.2 General planning considerations, specific planning policies and recommended strategies in the now repealed Ch 9 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.
The Site is identified as being partly within the “Coastal Environment Area” and the “Coastal Use Area” and therefore is defined as being within the coastal zone: ss 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12, Resilience and Hazards SEPP.
The Proposed Development is of itself not located within the mapped coastal environment area or the coastal use area, however, the existing farm operations within the Site are located in these areas. In relation to s 2.10 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, which deals with coastal environment area, the parties confirm in relation to the Proposed Development that:
There is no discernible impact on the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and such matters are managed by an existing farm management plan;
The coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes have no discernible impact as a result of the Development Application and such matters are managed by an existing farm management plan;
The marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms have no discernible impact as a result of the Development Application;
It has no impact on existing public open space and safe access to the foreshore;
It has no impact on areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage and/or practices; and
There is no use of the surf zone.
In relation to s 2.11 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, which deals with coastal use area, the parties confirm that the Proposed Development:
Has no impact on the existing, safe access to and along the foreshore for members of the public, including persons with a disability;
Has no impact on overshadowing, wind funnelling, or the loss of views from public places to the foreshore;
Has no impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;
Has no impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places; and
Has no impact on cultural and built environment heritage.
Further, the parties confirm that:
They have taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development, and
The development is designed, sited, and will be managed to avoid any adverse impacts referred to above.
The Applicant has provided to the Court a letter from DMPS Town Planning and Property Development Services dated 14 July 2025 which addresses s 2.12 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP and concludes that:
“given the distance of proposed works from the area of the site mapped as Coastal Use Area and Coastal Environment Area, and noting the only activity occurring within these areas is continuation of the existing farm and related uses, the proposed development is not likely to cause an increased risk of coastal hazards on the site or on other land.”
In relation to any potential risks arising from stormwater runoff during construction or operation, and activities related to construction of the road and carpark, the agreed conditions of consent provides appropriate measures and management practices including conditions 26, 51, 57, and 61.
The SEE and Respondent’s Assessment Report both conclude that the Site is unlikely to be contaminated due to historical uses of the locality and therefore the Site can be considered suitable for the proposed use pursuant to s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP.
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 I have set out in this judgment
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 Court notes that,
Hawkesbury Shire Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed, under s 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to Development Application No. DA0330/22 to include the following documents (‘Amended Application’):
| TAB | DOCUMENT | DATE | | 1. | Amended Plan of Management prepared by DMPS (Rev A) | July 2025 | | 2. | Amended Civil Engineering Plans prepared by Group Development Services • P00880-CI-DA-1001 COVER SHEET, LOCALITY PLAN AND DRAWING SCHEDULE • P00880-CI-DA-1021 GENERAL NOTES (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1031 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1051 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1052 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1053 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1054 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1055 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 5 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1056 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 6 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1057 EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND SERVICES - SHEET 7 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1061 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1062 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1063 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1064 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1065 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 5 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1066 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 6 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1067 DEMOLITION AND TREE REMOVAL / RETENTION PLAN - SHEET 7 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1101 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1102 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1103 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1104 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1105 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 5 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1106 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 6 v • P00880-CI-DA-1107 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - SHEET 7 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1131 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1201 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 1 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1202 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 2 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1203 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 3 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1204 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 4 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1205 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 5 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1206 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 6 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1207 CUT/FILL EARTHWORKS PLAN - SHEET 7 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1321 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 1 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1322 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 2 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1323 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 3 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1324 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 4 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1325 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 5 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1326 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 6 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1327 CIVIL WORKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 7 (Rev D) • P00880-CI-DA-1381 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1382 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1383 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1384 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1385 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 5(Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1386 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 6 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1387 TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 7 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1501 TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTIONS AND PAVEMENT DETAIL (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1521 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1522 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1523 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1524 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1525 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 5 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1526 ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 6 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1541 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 1 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1542 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 2 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1543 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 3 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1544 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 4 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1545 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 5 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1546 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 6 (Rev C) • P00880-CI-DA-1547 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 7 (Rev C) | Up to 10 July 2025 | | 3. | Updated Koala Assessment Report, prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology | 9 July 2025 | | 4. | Updated Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology | 9 July 2025 | | 5. | Updated Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology | 11 July 2025 | | 6. | Updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology | 10 July 2025 | | 7. | Letter from Arbosure | 11 July 2025 | | 8. | Schedule 3 – Canopy Revegetation Plan prepared by Travers Bushfire & Ecology | 10 July 2025 |
The Court orders:
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs ‘thrown away’ in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) as a result of the amendment to the development application in the sum of thirty two thousand five hundred ($32,500) and the Court notes that the parties agree that this will be in satisfaction of all costs orders made in the proceedings.
Development Application No. DA0330/22 for alterations and additions to the existing shed structure and for change of use to a restaurant, including construction of an associated carparking area at 600 Laws Farm Road, Cumberland Reach is determined by the grant of development consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure A**.**
Annexure A (443 KB, pdf)
**********
Stix Holdings Pty Ltd
Hawkesbury City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1565