1145 CG Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1489

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: 1145 CG Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1489 Hearing dates: Conciliation conferences on 6, 12 and 26 February, 8 March and 5 April 2024 Date of orders: 13 August 2024 Decision date: 13 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Kullen AC Decision: The Court orders that: (1) Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 , the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $6,000, such amount to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) Development c onsent is granted to Development Application No DA0151/23 as amended for the demolition of existing structures, and creation of 30 Torrens title lots over 2 stages, the removal of vegetation, construction of roads, drainage civil works and associated street landscaping works on land legally described as Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 in DP 872233 and known as 65, 67 and 69 Wells Street, Pitt Town NSW 2756 , subject to the conditions at Annexure A. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 , ss 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 8.7, 8.15, 10.3, Pt 7, Div 7.1, Subdiv 2, Sch 1, Div 2, s 7 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 , s 34 Rural Fires Act 1997 , s 100B Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38 Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 , cll 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 4.1B, 4.1C, 4.2B, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 6.8, 6 .9 State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Housing and Productivity Contributions) 2023, cl 4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Chs 2, 4, 6 , Pt 6.2, ss 4.9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 Texts Cited: Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 20 2 2 NSW Rural Fire Service, Hawkesbury Bush Fire Prone Land Map NSW Rural Fire Service, Planning for Bush Fire Protection, November 2019 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 1145 CG Pty Ltd (Applicant) Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: E Fleming (Solicitor) (Applicant) J Corradini-Bird (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: MacPherson Kelley (Applicant) Marsden Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/214858 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment COMMISSIONER : This is a n a ppeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of development application No DA0151/23 (the DA) for the demolition of existing structures, and creation of 30 Torrens title lots over 2 stages, the removal of vegetation, construction of roads, drainage civil works and associated street landscaping works on land legally described as Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 in DP 872233 and known as 65, 67 and 69 Wells Street, Pitt Town , NSW , 2756 . A conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties was convened by the Court on 6 February 202 4 . I presided over the s 34 conciliation conference. At the request of the parties the on-site view was vacated, as the one submitter to the DA did not wish to make a verbal submission. The s 34 conciliation conference was adjourned to allow time for amended plans to be prepared by the Applicant and assessed by the Respondent, and subsequently further adjourned a number of times to allow the parties time to consider and review the revised plans and to finalise the s 34 agreement and conditions of consent based on an amended development application (the amended DA). The matter was also subject to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which was required to be exhibited and signed before the DA was approved. After the conciliation conference s , and the assessment by the Respondent of the amended plans, the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The parties also advise that the VPA has been registered on title and the Satisfactory Arrangements Certificate was issued by the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment on 7 June 2024 (refer to [ 18( 8 )(c) ] below). The key changes made in the amended DA arising from the conciliation conference are as follows: Stormwater management on site was redesigned to locate retaining walls inside the property boundaries and include a drainage easement ; and A revised subdivision plan including changes to the proposed road layout. A signed s 34 agreement with Annexure A was filed with the Court on 12 June 2024 with amended plans and additional material (the amended DA) as agreed between the parties. Subsequently a corrected s 34 agreement and Annexure A were filed with the Court on 2 July 2024. The s 34 agreement is supported by an agreed statement of jurisdictional prerequisites. 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 . This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the DA subject to conditions. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The p arties have identified and explained how the juri sdictional prerequisites of relevance have been satisfied in a jurisdictional note ac companying the s 34 agreement , and those requirements have been satisfied as follows . Jurisdictional Prerequisites Owner’s Consent The parties advise that landowners ’ consents for the DA have been provided . Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2022 - (Sch 1, Div 2, s 7(1) of the EPA Act ) The parties advise that the DA was notified in accordance with Part A Chapter 3 of the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2022 (DCP) (Notification Plan) between 31 May 2023 to 13 June 2023. One submission was received during the notification period. The amended DA was not formally re-notified . The parties advise that the Respondent formed the opinion that the amendments do not have an additional impact on the environment or the locality. However, the parties advise that the a mended DA was informally notified to the adjoining property owner of 116 Hall Street , who had made an objection to the DA. A response on behalf of the owners of 116 Hall Street was received by the Respondent, confirming their concerns had been addressed by the a mended DA subject to an easement for drainage being registered, which is provided for in the agreed conditions of consent. Conditions The s 34 agreement includes the imposition of conditions which are imposed under s 4.17(1) of the EPA Act. Integrated Development The parties advise that t he DA was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Services (the RFS) pursuant to s 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (RFA) as the s ite is identified as bushfire prone land. The RFS issued a Bushfire Safety Authority and general terms of approval for the DA pursuant to s 100B of the RFA on 19 June 2023 . These documents can be found at Annexure ‘ A ’ to the a greed c onditions of consent. Bushfire Prone Land (Section 4.14 of the EPA Act) Section 4.14(1) of the EPA Act provides that development consent cannot be granted on bushfire prone land unless the consent authority: is satisfied pursuant to s 4.14(1)(a) that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the version (as prescribed by the regulations) of the document entitled Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 prepared by the RFS in co-operation with the Department (or, if another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that document) that are relevant to the development (the relevant specifications and requirements); or has been provided with a certificate by a person who is recognised by the RFS pursuant to s 4.14(1)(b) as a qualified consultant in bush fire risk assessment stating that the development conforms to the relevant specifications and requirements. The parties advise that: The site i s identified as Bushfire Prone Land on the relevant Bush Fire Prone Land Map under s 10.3(2) of the EPA Act. The s ite is constrained by vegetation classified as Category 1 Bushfire Vegetation ; The DA was referred to the RFS pursuant to s 100B of the R FA ; A Bushfire Assessment Report has been prepared which confirms that the DA can comply with the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 as required under section 4.14 (1) (a) of the EPA Act. The Bushfire Assessment Report also provides recommended mitigation measures and construction requirements to reasonably address the aims and objectives of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019 . The RFS issued a Bushfire Safety Authority and general terms of approval for the DA pursuant to s 100B of the RFA on 1 9 June 2023. Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 The Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 ( the LEP) is the relevant local environmental planning instrument that applies to the site; and The site is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential under cl 2.2 of the LEP; Subdivision works are permissible with consent under cl 2.6 of the LEP; The parties submit that the amended DA for the subdivision of the site into residential lots for future low density residential development is consistent with the R5 zone objectives at cl 2.3 of the LEP; and I am satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out . T he parties advise that cl 4.1 (Minimum Lot Size) applies to the site : Pursuant to cl 4.1(3), the minimum lot size for the s ite is 2 hectares ; Additional requirements for subdivision in the R5 Zone are set out at cl 4.1B. Clause 4.1B(2) provides that development consent must not be granted to a subdivision of land unless the following matters are addressed: the pattern of lots created by the subdivision and the location of any buildings on those lots is not likely to have a significant impact on any threatened species, populations or endangered ecological community or regionally significant wetland, waterways, groundwater or agricultural activities in the locality; and the consent authority is satisfied that each lot to be created contains a suitable area for a dwelling house, an appropriate asset protection zone relating to bush fire hazard and an adequate sewage management system if sewerage is not available ; and if sewerage is not available — the consent authority has considered a geotechnical assessment that demonstrates the land is adequate for the on-site disposal of effluent ; and the consent authority is satisfied that there is a satisfactory ratio between the depth of each lot and the frontage of each lot, having regard to the purpose for which the lot is to be used . The parties advise that these matters have been addressed and that these requirements have been met in the amended DA , as follows: Based on the investigations and conclusions of reports on archaeological , ecological and soil salinity assessments, and a detailed site investigation and geotechnical investigation submitted with the DA, the proposed development will not have any significant impact on the matters specified in cl 4.1B(2)(a ) ; The Bushfire Assessment Report submitted with the DA confirms that the proposed development is compliant with, or capable of compliance with, the requirements of asset protection zones; The proposed development proposes sewerage management through gravity reticulation to Altogether Group ’ s private Pitt Town Local Water Centre prior to obtaining subdivision certificates from the Respondent; and The proposed lot sizes and dimensions are in accordance with the relevant provisions of the LEP and the Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2022 . The amended DA relies on cl 4.1C (Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot size) in relation to the proposed subdivision lot sizes. The s ite is identified as “ U ” on the Lot Averaging Map in the LEP . The parties advise that p ursuant to cl 4.1C(3), despite cl 4.1, development consent may be granted under this clause for an averaging subdivision of land to which this clause applies if the size of any lot resulting from that subdivision will not be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Averaging Map in relation to that land ; and The Lot Averaging Map prescribes a minimum lot size of 1500 square metres with a lot density not greater than five lots per hectare. The parties advise that all proposed lots under the amended DA have a minimum lot size of 1500 square metres. The site has a net developable area of approximately 6 hectares. The amended DA proposes the subdivision of land into 30 lots in accordance with the maximum permitted lot density of 5 lots per hectare, and therefore complies with cl 4.1C(3) . Clause 4.2B (Additional requirements for subdivisions in certain flood planning areas) applies to the site. Pursuant to cl 4.2B(2), development consent must not be granted for a subdivision to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is sufficient for the erection of a dwelling house ; and The parties advise that the site is not identified as flood affected land and the s ite is located above the flood planning level of a 1:100 ARI (average recurrent interval) flood event, being 17.3 metres . Cl aus e 6.1 of the LEP relates to acid sulfate soils. The site is mapped as Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils; and The parties advise that n o works are proposed within 500 metres of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) and the development is not likely to lower the water table below 1 metre AHD on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land . Clause 6.2 of the LEP relates to earthworks. The extent of the earthworks proposed for the development relates to site regrading works to provide the levels for future residential development. The parties advise that: The proposed development was designed to consider the results and recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Core Geotech dated 2 January 2023; The proposed development will not adversely affect or disrupt drainage and flood patterns, flood storage or soil stability in the area; The proposed earthworks are consistent with the site ’ s context and are in accordance with the Respondent ’ s current and proposed planning strategies ; The destination of any excavated material is to be in accordance with the conditions of consent ; It is considered unlikely that excavation will lead to the disturbance of relics as the site is not known to be situated within an area of archaeological significance ( see [ 18(9) ] below) ; and the earthworks are unlikely to impact on any watercourse, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive areas due to the location of the s ite . Clause 6.7 of the LEP relates to essential services and provides that “ Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required ” . The parties advised that in relation to the required services: The supply of water - e ach lot will be provided potable water connections prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate. The Applicant will provide lead in mains to provide water services to the proposed development ; The supply of electricity - A network enquiry lodged with Endeavour Energy has approved a design brief for the proposed 30 lot subdivision which confirms that the development will be adequately serviced by electricity ; The disposal and management of sewage - The internal subdivision will be provisioned through gravity reticulation to Altogether Group ’ s private Pitt Town Local Water Centre prior to obtaining subdivision certificates from the Respondent. Notices of Requirements have been obtained from Altogether Group for Stage 1A and 1B of the subdivision. A Satisfactory Arrangements Letter has also been obtained which confirms that arrangements are in place for the development to access the available capacity in Altogether Group ’ s private sewer infrastructure ; Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation - The amended DA is accompanied by stormwater drainage plans prepared by Orion Consulting dated 15 February 2024. The development involves the construction of stormwater drainage including inter-allotment drainage lines that will connect to the pit and pipe network where lots do not drain towards the street. A Stormwater Management Report prepared by Orion Consulting dated 31 January 2024 also accompanies the amended DA ; Suitable road access - The amended DA proposes the extension of Wilkinson Street and Wells Street through the site to provide road access to the development. Wells Street will serve to link the development to Pitt Town village and Wilkinson Street will ultimately link to Fleming Street once the adjoining site is developed to provide a cohesive road network; and The required utility clearances will be obtained prior to works commencing on the s ite. The Respondent is satisfied that the essential services will be made available to the development when required subject to the c onditions of consent . The former cl 6.8 of the LEP relates to arrangements for designated State public infrastructure and applies to the site. The State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Housing and Productivity Contributions) 2023 ( Housing and Productivity Contributions Amendment) commenc ed on 1 October 2023 and served to, inter alia, repeal cl 6.8 of the LEP. Clause 4 of the Housing and Productivity Contributions Amendment provides that a development application made but not fully determined before the commencement of the policy must be determined as if this policy had not commenced. The parties advise that: The DA was lodged on 3 May 2023, prior to the commencement of the Housing and Productivity Contributions Amendment. This appeal was commenced on the deemed refusal of the DA, and as such, the DA has not yet been finally determined ; The site is identified as having a “ Density Control ” of 1 lot per 2 hectares under the Pitt Town Subdivision and Designated State Public Infrastructure Map , referred to in former cl 6.8(2) of the LEP . The amended DA proposes a subdivision of land into 30 lots over 6 hectares, which exceeds the density controls on the Town Subdivision and Designated State Public Infrastructure Map. Former cl 6.8(4) provides that development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies unless the Director-General has certified in writing to the consent authority that satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of designated State public infrastructure in relation to that land; and The Applicant, landowners and the Minister have executed a VPA under Subdiv 2 of Div 7.1 of P t 7 of the EPA Act for the Applicant to make a monetary contribution for the provision of designated State public infrastructure in accordance with cl 6.8 of the LEP. The VPA has been registered on title and the Satisfactory Arrangements Certificate was issued by the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment on 7 June 2024 . Clause 6.9 of the LEP relates to additional requirements for subdividing land in the Pitt Town Heritage Area and applies to the site as it is identified as “ Potential Archaeological Site and Potential Place of Aboriginal Heritage Significance ” under the Pitt Town Heritage Map. Clause 6.9(2) provides that development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority has: Considered a heritage impact statement that explains how the development will affect the conservation of the site and any relic or Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the site ; and The parties advise that an Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment has been prepared by McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd dated 16 November 2022. The assessment confirms that there are no registered sites or Aboriginal Places within the s ite, no archaeological sites or potential archaeological deposits (PADs) were identified, and as such there are no impacts on the archaeological record and the likelihood of in situ cultural materials at the s ite is very low. The assessment nonetheless provides recommendations in the event that any Aboriginal objects are uncovered during works . In relation to the site being a potential place of Aboriginal heritage significance , t he parties advise that the s ite is not a potential place of Aboriginal heritage significance and notification to the local Aboriginal communities is not required . State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 The a mended DA proposes the removal of trees to facilitate the proposed subdivision , and the parties advise that the matters arising out of Ch 2 (vegetation in non-rural areas) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) do not apply in this case. This is because the Applicant has not applied to remove the trees under permit, but rather seeks development consent to remove the trees under the EPA Act . Chapter 4 (Koala Habitat Protection 2021) of the Biodiversity SEPP applies to the proposed development. The parties advise that t here is no approved koala plan of management for the s ite, and thus, s 4.9 of the Biodiversity SEPP applies to the s ite. Section 4.9(2) of the Biodiversity SEPP provides that, before a council may grant consent to a development application for consent to carry out development on the land, the council must assess whether the development is likely to have any impact on koalas or koala habitat. Section 4.9(3) of the Biodiversity SEPP provides that the Council may grant consent to a development application if the council is satisfied that the development is likely to have a low or no impact on koalas or koala habitat ; and An Ecological Assessment has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia dated 24 January 2023. The parties advise that, b ased on the investigations, the assessment confirms that, despite the s ite containing 21 trees that are koala use tree species, there are no koalas or evidence of koalas detected ; and The parties further advise that there are no recent records of the koala within the site or immediately adjoining properties. In that regard, the site and adjoining areas are not considered to represent “ core koala habitat ” and a koala assessment report is not required. Chapter 6 (Water C atchments) of th e Biodiversity SEPP applies as the site is located in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. T he parties advise, and I am satisfied , that these matters in Pt 6.2 of the Biodiversity SEPP have been considered in the following materials accompanying the a mended DA: Statement of Environmental Effects (pp 21-22 ); Engineering plans prepared by Orion Consulting dated 15 February 2024; Stormwater Management Report prepared by Orion Consulting dated 31 January 2024; Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment prepared by SCP Consulting dated 16 November 2022; Ecological Assessment prepared by SLR Consulting Australia dated 24 January 2023; Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by Waratah Bushfire dated 14 April 2023; Stage 1 Preliminary & Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation prepared by Sydney Environmental Group dated 29 November 2022; Soil Salinity Assessment prepared by Sydney Environmental Group dated 17 April 2023; and Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Core Geotech dated 2 January 2023 . State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 In relation to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience SEPP), s 4.6 requires that a consent authority must not grant consent to a development unless it has considered whether a site is contaminated, and if it is, that it is satisfied that the site is suitable (or will be suitable after undergoing remediation) for the proposed use. The parties advise, and I am satisfied that: A Stage 1 Preliminary & Stage 2 Detailed Site Investigation to support the DA has been prepared by Sydney Environmental Group dated 29 November 2022; Based on the investigations of the contamination assessment, the site can be considered suitable for its proposed residential land use. The recommendations proposed in the contamination assessment have been considered throughout the c onditions of consent , in particular, at c ondition s 73 and 74 ; A Soil Salinity Assessment to support the DA has also been prepared by Sydney Environmental Group dated 17 April 2023 which confirms that the soils within the site are considered to be non-saline, non-aggressive, and non-sodic. Based on these conclusions, no site-specific management requirements are necessary for the site; and The Court can be satisfied that the site is suitable , or will be suitable, for its proposed residential land use. Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2022 The parties advise that the proposed lot sizes and dimensions in the amended DA are in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DCP. Conclusion Having considered the advice of the parties provided above at [ 10 ] - [ 24 ], I am satisfied that: T he applicants ’ f urther a mended DA can be approved , having regard to the matters in s 4.15(1)(b) – (e) of the EPA Act; T he jurisdictional prerequisites on which I must be satisfied before I can exercise the power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act have been satisfied; and A pproval of the proposed development is in the public interest. Further, 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties . The Court notes that : Hawkesbury City Council, as the relevant consent authority, pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, has approved the application for an amendment to development application No DA0151/23 made on 7 June 2024 to rely on the plans and documents specified below: Drawing No and Revision Title Prepared by Date Subdivision Plans 1 Drawing No. 001 Revision A Concept Plan of Subdivision Orion 1 February 2024 Engineering Plans 2 Plan No 000 Revision C Cover Sheet & Plan Index Orion 15 February 2024 Plan No 001 Revision C General Layout Plan, Notes & Legend 15 February 2024 Plan No 002 Revision C Demolition & Tree Removal Plan Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 003 Revision C Demolition & Tree Removal Plan Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 004 Revision C Site Regrading Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 005 Revision C Site Regrading Sections 15 February 2024 Plan No 100 Revision C Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 101 Revision C Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 102 Revision C Sediment and Erosion Control Notes & Details 15 February 2024 Plan No 200 Revision C Engineering Plan Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 201 Revision C Engineering Plan Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 202 Revision C Engineering Plan Decommissioning of Temporary Road 01 15 February 2024 Plan No 300 Revision C Typical Road Cross Sections 15 February 2024 Plan No 301 Revision C Road Long Sections Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 302 Revision C Road Long Sections Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 500 Revision C Ultimate Stormwater Catchment Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 501 Revision C Interim Stormwater Catchment Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 502 Revision C Drainage Long Sections Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 503 Revision C Drainage Long Sections Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 504 Revision C Drainage Long Sections Sheet 3 15 February 2024 Plan No 505 Revision C Drainage Long Sections Sheet 4 15 February 2024 Plan No 506 Revision C Drainage Long Sections Sheet 5 15 February 2024 Plan No 510 Revision B Drainage Calculations & Notes 15 February 2024 Plan No 600 Revision A Regional Basin Access Reconstruction Works & Drainage Connection Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 700 Revision C Retaining Wall Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 701 Revision C Retaining Wall Long Sections 15 February 2024 Plan No 800 Revision C Vehicle Swept Path Plan Sheet 1 15 February 2024 Plan No 801 Revision C Vehicle Swept Path Plan Sheet 2 15 February 2024 Plan No 802 Revision C Vehicle Swept Path Plan Sheet 3 15 February 2024 Plan No 900 Revision C Street Tree Plan 15 February 2024 Plan No 950 Revision C Signage & Linemarking Plan 15 February 2024 Reports / documents 3 Stage 2 Concept Design for DA Road Safety Audit Report Positive Traffic February 2024 4 Stormwater Management Report Orion 31 January 2024 5 Notice of Requirements for Developer Infrastructure Works (Stage 1A) Altogether Pitt Town Pty Ltd 17 May 2023 6 Notice of Requirements for Developer Infrastructure Works (Stage 1B) Altogether Pitt Town Pty Ltd 17 May 2023 7 Satisfactory Arrangements for Sewer Connection Johnson Property Group 23 June 2023 8 Satisfactory Arrangement Certificate SVPA2023-85 Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 7 June 2024 The Court orders: Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 , the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $6,000, such amount to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order. The appeal is upheld. Development consent is granted to Development Application No DA0151/23 as amended for the demolition of existing structures, and creation of 30 Torrens title lots over 2 stages, the removal of vegetation, construction of roads, drainage civil works and associated street landscaping works on land legally described as Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 in DP 872233 and known as 65, 67 and 69 Wells Street, Pitt Town NSW 2756, subject to the conditions at Annexure A. G Kullen Acting Commissioner of the Court 2023.214858 Annexure A ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 August 2024