Beaconsfield Pde Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council
[2025] NSWLEC 1500
•16 July 2025
Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Beaconsfield Pde Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1500 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 April, 12 May and 4 July 2025 Date of orders: 16 July 2025 Decision date: 16 July 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application eDA0376/24 is approved for demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of a residential apartment building comprising of 36 apartments, basement car parking and associated landscaping and civil works at 4 and 4A Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield (legally known as Lot B in DP 342546 and Lot A in DP 342546) subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.
(3) The Applicant agrees to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the amount of $18,515 within 28 days of this judgment.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – demolition of structures and construction of a residential apartment building – conciliation – additional information and amended development application – agreement between the parties – orders made
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 8.15, 8.7
Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 23, 27, 37
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.6, 5.10, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 2, Pts 2.3, 6.2, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Chs 4, 5, ss 147, 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 161
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, s 2.1
Texts Cited: Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021
NSW Department of Planning and Environment, Apartment Design Guide
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Beaconsfield Pde Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Lindeman-Jones (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Morton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Addisons (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/400982 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) by Beaconsfield Pde Pty Ltd (the Applicant) against the refusal of their development application DA eDA0376/24. The development application, as amended, seeks consent for demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of a residential apartment building comprising 36 apartments, basement carparking and associated landscaping and civil works. The development is proposed at 4 and 4A Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield, legally known as Lot B in DP 342546 and Lot A in DP 342546 (the site).
-
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 was held on 17 April 2025. Following the conciliation conference, the parties were provided additional time by the Court however the conciliation was ultimately terminated and the matter listed for hearing.
-
Notwithstanding the termination of the conciliation conference, the parties continued to negotiate in relation to the form of the development and appropriate conditions of consent. These negotiations were productive. The Applicant further amended the development application in May 2025, seeking to address the Respondent's concerns. The parties continued discussions on the amended plans and reached an agreement based on the amended development application. The parties’ agreement is for the grant of consent to the application, as amended, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The parties sought a further conciliation conference which was arranged for 4 July 2025. I presided over the further conciliation conference.
-
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). The purpose of this test is to determine whether any jurisdictional impediments that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the parties agreed resolution: see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]. I form this state of satisfaction on the basis that:
The development application was lodged with the consent of the owners of the land: s 23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation).
The development application was notified publicly from 1 to 31 October 2024. Three objections were received in relation to the development application. I am satisfied that the submissions have been considered in the determination of the development application by either amendment of the application or through the imposition of conditions of consent: s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act.
Section 4.6(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP RH) precludes the granting of development consent unless the consent authority has considered whether the land is contaminated. The Respondent and the Applicant agree, and I accept, that the site has a long history of residential purposes and no known records of contaminating activity being conducted on the site. This history is detailed in the Statement of Environmental Effects. I find that s 4.6(1) of SEPP RH is satisfied.
The provisions of Ch 4 and Ch 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) apply to the development application as the proposed development is for a residential flat building in a "relevant residential zone" as defined in s 151 of the Housing SEPP. The site is located within a “Transport Oriented Development Area” (TOD Area) as defined in s 152 of the Housing SEPP.
Section 147 of the Housing SEPP requires that the consent authority consider the Design Principles in Sch 9 of the Housing SEPP and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) when granting consent to a residential apartment development. The Applicant submitted a Design Verification Statement and Apartment Design Guide Assessment as part of the development application. With the benefit of those documents and reviewing the plans, I accept the parties’ agreement that the proposed development complies with s 147 of the Housing SEPP.
Section 155 of the Housing SEPP identifies development standards for height and floor space ratio (FSR) that if complied with prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards. Accordingly, the height and FSR controls in the Housing SEPP prevail over the height and FSR controls in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP 2015) which are more onerous than the Housing SEPP height and FSR controls.
Section 155(2) of the Housing SEPP applies to the proposed development which states the maximum building height of a building in a TOD Area is 22m. The proposed development proposes a maximum building height of 27m. The development application is accompanied by a written request to vary the height standard pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2015. I have read the written request prepared by Glyde Consulting and in accordance with cl 4.6 of LEP 2015, I am satisfied that:
The written request demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the basis that the objectives of the Height control are met, notwithstanding the numeric variation (cl 4.6(3)(a) of LEP 2015). I find that the objectives of the Height standard are met, notwithstanding the variation to the standard for the reasons detailed in the written request which I adopt.
I am satisfied that the written request adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach of the standards (cl 4.6(3)(b) of LEP 2021). In particular, I find that the reasons articulated in written request in relation to the landform of the site, its orientation and the existence of residential flat development on the adjoining lots.
The states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development, notwithstanding the breach of the Height control.
Section 155(4) of the Housing SEPP applies to the proposed development which states the maximum FSR of a residential flat building is 2.5:1. The proposed development complies with this FSR control.
Section 156 – Affordable housing of the Housing SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that at least 2% of the gross floor area of the building will be used for affordable housing. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 6,171.2m2. One unit of affordable housing is proposed (G06) which has a gross floor area of 123.50m2. The proposed development complies with s 156 of the Housing SEPP. As required by s 157, a parking space is provided for the affordable housing unit.
The development application complies with s 159 – Minimum Lot width of the Housing SEPP as the front building line of the proposed development is 49.4m.
Section 161 of the Housing SEPP states that development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of residential flat buildings, independent living units or shop top housing on land in a TOD Area unless the consent authority has considered the ADG. The Applicant submitted a Design Verification Statement and ADG Assessment as part of the development application. With the assistance of these documents, in determining the development application if have given consideration to the ADG.
Pursuant to the LEP 2015, the site is zoned R4- High Density Residential. In determining the development application, I have given consideration to the objectives of the zone, which are:
To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment.
To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.
To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
To provide for high density residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities.
Pursuant to cl 5.10 – Heritage Conservation of LEP 2015, I note that the site does not contain any heritage items, nor does it form part of a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The site is in proximity to a local heritage item and the Frances Street HCA. I accept the parties’ agreement that the proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on the HCA or nearby local heritage items.
Pursuant to cl 6.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils of LEP 2015, the site is identified on the LEP Maps as being affected by class 5 acid sulfate soils, however, the LEP Maps also show that the site is not located within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land and therefore the works are not likely to lower the water table below 1m Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land and acid sulfate soils management is not required.
A geotechnical report forms part of the development application which addresses the considerations at cl 6.2 of LEP 2015. As required by cl 6.2 ‘Earthworks’ of LEP 2015, I have given consideration to the matters in cl 6.2(3) of LEP 2015 in determining to grant consent to the development.
Pursuant to cl 6.6- Requirements for Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings of LEP 2015, the site is subject to a minimum dimension control (width and depth) of 30m if the area of the land is more than 1,800m2. The site has an area of 2,469.1m2. The site does not meet the minimum dimension of 30m on one side at the south-eastern boundary, which is 19.55m. The development application is accompanied by a written request to vary the height standard pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2015. I have read the written request prepared by Glyde Consulting and in accordance with cl 4.6 of LEP 2015, I am satisfied that:
The written request demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the basis that the objectives of the cl 6.6 of LEP 2015 are met, notwithstanding the numeric variation (cl 4.6(3)(a) of LEP 2015). I find that the objectives of the cl 6.6 of LEP 2015 are met, notwithstanding the variation to the standard for the reasons detailed in the written request which I adopt.
I am satisfied that the written request adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach of the standards (cl 4.6(3)(b) of LEP 2021). In particular, I find that the reasons articulated in written request in relation to the circumstance of the site being a remaining undeveloped parcel surrounded by lots that have recently been redeveloped affecting the potential for compliance is an environmental planning ground that justifies the variation to the minimum lot depth dimension.
The states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of LEP 2021 have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development, notwithstanding the breach of the development standard at cl 6.6 of LEP 2015.
The proposed development seeks consent for the removal of 52 trees as set out in the amended Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Naturally Trees dated 23 May 2025. The requirements of Ch 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) are satisfied as the development application seeks development consent for the removal of any trees to which Pt 2.3 of the SEPP BC applies.
Part 6.2 ‘Development in regulated catchments’ of the SEPP BC applies as the site is located with the Sydney Harbour Catchment. The parties are satisfied, and I accept with the assistance of the architectural stormwater plans, that the proposed development will have a neutral effect on the quality of water entering the Sydney Harbour Catchment.
Further, in determining the development application I am satisfied that the proposal appropriately considers the matters set out at ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 of SEPP BC, which deal with mandatory aquatic ecology matters, impacts on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems, impacts on recreational land uses in the Sydney Harbour Catchment, and adverse environmental impacts on any adjacent or downstream local government areas. The parties agree, and I accept, that no clearing is proposed nor is consent sought under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) or the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW). There are no known wetlands or significant aquatic ecology that will be affected by the proposed development. Further, the proposed development will not result in the release of pollutants or affect water quality in the locality nor alter the natural recession of water.
The amended development application provides an updated BASIX Certificate as required pursuant to s 27 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW). Section 2.1(5) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (SEPP BASIX) requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the embodied emissions attributable to the development have been quantified. The parties agree, and I accept that, the sum of embodied emissions from all materials proposed has been entered into the online BASIX online tool and the total embodied emissions for the development have been calculated. I am satisfied that the embodied energy report forms part of the online BASIX tool of which the BASIX certificate is part.
Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan 2021 (DCP 2021) applies to the site. The documents filed with the application detail the compliance of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of DCP 2021. In determining the development application, I have considered the provisions of the development control plan: s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
-
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could make in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act requires me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The LEC Act also requires me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)).
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, the parties have not raised, and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
Notes
-
The Court notes that:
that Ku-ring-gai Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed under s 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2021 (NSW) to the Applicant amending Development Application no. eDA0376/24 to include the following amended plans and reports:
| Tab | Document | Date | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. | Architectural Plans prepared by Giles Tribe
| 15 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. | Landscape plans prepared by StudioIZ
| 22 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | Stormwater Management Plans prepared by JCO Consultants
| 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. | Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Traffix | May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. | Civil Works Plans prepared by JCO Consultants
| 20 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6. | Clause 4.6 Variation Request (Height) prepared by Gyde Consulting | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7. | Clause 4.6 Variation Request (Site Width) prepared by Gyde Consulting | 4 April 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8. | Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Naturally Trees | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9. | Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Elite Geosciences | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10. | Access capability statement for DA Submission prepared by DC Partnership | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11. | BCA Design Assessment Report prepared by DC Partnership | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12. | Acoustic DA Assessment prepared by acouras consultancy | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13. | BASIX Certificate | 22 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14. | Livable Housing Report | 23 May 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15. | NatHERS Certificate | 22 May 2025 |
Orders
-
The Court orders that:
The appeal is upheld.
Development application eDA0376/24 is approved for demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of a residential apartment building comprising of 36 apartments, basement car parking and associated landscaping and civil works at 4 and 4A Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield (legally known as Lot B in DP 342546 and Lot A in DP 342546) subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.
The Applicant agrees to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the amount of $18,515 within 28 days of this judgment.
D Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (497 KB, pdf)
**********
Decision last updated: 16 July 2025
0
1
10