Civil and Civic Group Pty Ltd v Wagga Wagga City Council

[2024] NSWLEC 1846

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Civil and Civic Group Pty Ltd v Wagga Wagga City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1846

Hearing dates:

9 December 2024

Date of orders:

31 December 2024

Decision date:

31 December 2024

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Espinosa C

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development consent is granted to DA23/0157 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and farm storage buildings and subdivision of existing lots into 11 lots for the purpose of future enterprise at 3870 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly subject to conditions of consent annexed and marked ‘Annexure A’.

(3) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs ‘thrown away’ as a result the amendment of the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – subdivision – future enterprise – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.16, 8.7, 8.15

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 23, 38

State Environmental Planning policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Div 5, s 2.48; Div 17, s 2.119

Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010, cll 2.6, 2.7, 4.1, 4.1A, 4.2, 4.6A, 5.10, 5.11, 5.21, 6.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.10, Sch 5

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Civil and Civic Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wagga Wagga City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
N Eastman (Applicant)
S Simington (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/315844

Publication restriction:

No

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 DA23/0157 seeking consent for demolition of the existing dwelling house and farm storage buildings and subdivision of the existing lot into 11 lots for the purpose of a future enterprise corridor (Proposed Development) at 3870 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly and is legally identified as Lot 1 DP 305732 and Lot 1 DP 1085667 (the Site).

2. The Proposed Development includes the following works:

1. Intersection upgrade works at the junction of the Sturt Highway and Bakers Lane in the form of a roundabout;

2. Road construction to upgrade the existing Crown road extending north from of the Sturt Highway and Bakers Lane junction including a cul-de-sac for turning at its southern extent;

3. Road construction to provide an east-west internal access road servicing the 11 proposed allotments. The internal access road will incorporate a cul-de-sac for turning at its western extent. The road will terminate to provide for future access to adjoining land to the west; and

4. Service augmentation.

3. On 14 May 2024, the parties participated in a Conciliation Conference pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) before Acting Commissioner Harding. The Conciliation Conference was adjourned before being terminated on 13 June 2024.

4. On 10 October 2024, the Applicant filed a filed a notice of motion and on 18 October 2024, the Applicant was granted leave to rely on the Applicant’s Amended Application (Amended Application) which resolved most of the contentions as evidenced by the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions (ASOFAC) filed 1 November 2024. The amendments are described in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion at par 14 as follows:

1. Removing proposed lots 8 and 9 from land zoned RU1 to be wholly located within land zoned E3 (previously B6 zone) so as to provide 11 lots in total;

2. Amendment to proposed internal service road to provide shortened road 1 with turning bay and new proposed road 2 with new turning bay;

3. Reconfigured lot layout to accommodate new internal service road;

4. Extension of proposed works on Bakers Lane to include a cul-de-sac;

5. Provision of new parking spaces and new pedestrian footpaths to Bakers Lane and alignment of driveway to Lot 228;

6. Increasing the width of the road geometry and alignment of Bakers Land to the intersection of the proposed roundabout;

7. Provision of palisade fence along full length of the site on Sturt Hwy boundary; and

8. Provision of an onsite stormwater strategy that accommodates the amended layout and provides an onsite detention basin.

5. The parties have continued without prejudice discussions regarding the remaining matters raised in the ASOFC.

6. On 22 November 2024, the parties’ expert civil engineers prepared a joint expert report (JER) filed with the Court on 22 November 2024. The expert civil engineers were able, broadly, to reach an agreement on the manner in which the remaining contentions in the ASOFC could be addressed.

7. The parties agree that all the contentions raised in ASOFC have been resolved by the preparation of the:

1. amended plans and documents detailed in the notation below at [56]; and

2. agreed conditions of consent at Annexure A.

8. The Court arranged a further conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties, over which I presided on 9 December 2024.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

12. 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 s 2.119 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP), regarding development with frontage to classified road, namely the Sturt Highway. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in an agreed statement on jurisdictional prerequisites.

13. Pursuant to s 23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation), owner’s consent is required for lodgement of a development application. The Applicant has satisfied this requirement by providing the following owner’s consent letters:

1. Owner’s consent for Lot 1 DP 305732 and Lot DP 1085667 known as 3870 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly (Tab 1 of the Class 1 Application);

2. Owner’s consent for Lot 228 DP 757232 known as 3864 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly (Tab 1 of the Class 1 Application)

3. Owner’s consent for Lot B DP 397723 known as 20 Bakers Lane, Gumly Gumly (Tab 4 of the Exhibit CM-1); and

4. Owner’s consent from Crown lands for the Crown public road east of Lot 1 DP 1085667 and Lot 1 DP 305732 dated 30 September 2024 (Tab 5 of the Exhibit CM-1).

14. The Development Application was advertised and notified to surrounding properties by the Respondent between 30 August 2023 and 13 September 2023. The Respondent received 26 submissions and the main issues raised in the objections related to:

1. Traffic safety and heavy vehicle traffic operations;

2. Social impact of the Gumly Store/Post Office;

3. Flood impacts; and

4. Impact of future land uses on adjacent agricultural undertakings.

15. The parties agree that the public submissions have been considered and sufficiently addressed by the Amendments to the Development Application and the conditions of consent.

16. The contamination status and any need for remediation of the Site for the purpose of the Proposed Development must is to be considered in determining the Development Application pursuant to the terms of s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP).

17. In relation to the satisfaction of requirements of s 4.6 of the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, the Applicant prepared a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) report prepared by McMahan Earth Sciences dated December 2021 and filed with the Class 1 Application at Tab 6. The PSI identified that the Site is to be of low significance in terms of risk to future site users and is considered suitable for the proposed continued commercial land and no further investigations are considered necessary.

18. The Site is bound by the Sturt Highway to the south and Gumly Road to the north. The development proposes road works including the proposed round-about over the Sturt Highway road corridor that adjoins the southern boundaries of both Lot 1 DP 305732 and Lot 1 DP 1085667. A Crown road adjoins the eastern boundaries of both Lot 1 DP 305732 and Lot 1 DP 1085667. The Crown road is currently undeveloped with the exception of an informal access track extending from the Sturt Highway through to Gumly Road. The development proposes the construction of a road over the adjoining Crown road that will provide access to the proposed subdivision from the proposed roundabout intersection on the Sturt Highway. The development proposes road widening to enable the proposed round-about construction that will impact on Lot B DP397723, identified as 3871 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly.

19. Crown Lands have provided its consent to the making of the application with respect to the proposed road construction of the unformed Crown Public Road east of the site. Crown Lands have advised that it is a requirement that the Crown road impacted by the development be transferred to, and managed by Council.

20. The two relevant provisions of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP that require satisfaction of jurisdictional prerequisites are:

1. Subdivision 2 of Division 5 (Electricity transmission or distribution) in particular s 2.48 Determination of development applications - other development; and

2. Subdivision 2 of Division 17 (Roads and Traffic) in particular s 2.119 Development with frontage to classified road.

21. Section 2.48 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP applies when the Site and development on that Site is carried out within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line. The Development Application was referred by the Respondent to Essential Energy, as required by s 2.48(1) of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP. Essential Energy did not raise any objections in their response dated 6 September 2024 and provided general comments regarding safety recommendations during construction of the Proposed Development. Conditions 31 and 54 relate to Essential Energy and requiring the applicant to obtain a Notification of Arrangement for electricity supply and relate to safety requirements associated with working near existing electricity infrastructure in the area.

22. Pursuant to s 2.119 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, a consent authority must not grant consent to a development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied of the matters listed in s 2.119(2)(a) to (c). The Proposed Development seeks consent for the widening of a road to enable construction of the round-about on the intersection of Sturt Highway and Bakers Lane as well as seeking consent for a cul-de-sac for turning at its southern extent on Bakers Lane.

23. As assessment of the Proposed Development against the terms of s 2.119 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP is set out from pp 2 to 9 of the Responses to Contentions (Traffic and parking) prepared by JMT Consulting dated 30 September 2024, found at Tab 9 in the Exhibit CM-1. The Applicant also relies on the amended civil drawing prepared by Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers Revision Y dated 28 November 2024.

24. The Amended Application was referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) who by letter dated 3 December 2024 does not object to the Proposed Development and attaches recommended conditions of consent the substance of which have been included at condition 5 of the agreed conditions of consent.

25. Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the safety, efficiency and ongoing operations of the Sturt Highway will not be adversely affected by the Proposed Development.

26. There are a number of relevant provisions in the Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010 (WWLEP).

27. The Site is identified on the Land Zone Map as zoned RU1 Primary Production and E3 Productivity Support pursuant to the WWLEP and the extent of development on the portion of the Site that is zoned RU1 is the proposed detention basin as depicted in the Overall Subdivision Layout Plan, drawing A0002 Revision Y dated 28 November 2024.

28. Pursuant to cl 2.6(2) of the WWLEP development consent must not be granted for the subdivision of land on which a secondary dwelling is situated if the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling being situated on separate lots, unless the resulting lots are not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land’. The Proposed Development is permissible with consent and does not seek consent for a dwelling being situated on separate lots.

29. Clause 2.7 of the WWLEP refers to demolition which requires development consent. The Proposed Development seeks consent for demolition of existing structures and tree removal.

30. As the Proposed Development seeks consent for subdivision, cl 4.1 of the WWLEP provides for the minimum subdivision lot size for subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map (cl 4.1(2)) and provides that the size of any lot resulting from subdivision on land is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map (cl 4.1(3)). The Lot Size Map identifies that

1. there is no minimum lot size for E3 zoned land; and

2. land which is zoned RU1 requires a minimum lot size of 200 hectares.

31. The Proposed Development provides 11.92 hectares in land zoned RU1 which is less than 200 hectares, however, complies with the exception in cl 4.1A of the WWLEP.

32. Clause 4.1A is titled “Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain split zones” and provides the following:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows—

(a) to provide for the subdivision of lots that are within more than one zone but cannot be subdivided under clause 4.1,

(b) to ensure that the subdivision occurs in a manner that promotes suitable land use and development.

(2) This clause applies to each lot (an original lot) that contains—

(a) land in a residential, employment or mixed use zone, and

(b) land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU6 Transition or Zone C2 Environmental Conservation.

(3) Despite clause 4.1, development consent may be granted to subdivide an original lot to create other lots (the resulting lots) if—

(a) one of the resulting lots will contain—

(i) land in a residential, employment or mixed use zone that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land, and

(ii) all of the land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU6 Transition or Zone C2 Environmental Conservation that was in the original lot, and

(b) all other resulting lots will contain land that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

33. This clause applies to each lot that contains land on one of the zones listed in both cll 4.1A(2)(a) and (b). Despite the operation of cl 4.1 which prescribes a minimum lot size per the Lot Size Map for each zone, development consent may be granted to subdivide a lot that falls within clause 4.1A(2), provided the matters in clause 4.1A(3) are met.

34. This clause applies to the Site as it contains land which is zoned RU1 Primary Production and E3 Productivity Support and is therefore identified as an ‘original lot’ under cl 4.1A(2). The Proposed Development seeks consent for the subdivision of the original lot as follows:

1. In compliance with cl 4.1A(3)(a)(i) land which is residential, employment or mixed zone is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map. The Site is zoned in part E3 Productivity Support (previously B6 Enterprise Corridor zone), being an employment zone, and does not have a minimum lot size. The development application has been amended to remove originally proposed lots 8 and 9 from land zoned RU1 to be wholly located within land zoned E3 (previously B6 zone);

2. All of the land zoned RU1 in the original lot will be contained in the new resulting lot, proposed lot 11. The new lot 11 is reliant on the operation of cl 4.1A.

3. Clause 4.1A(3)(b) requires that all other resulting lots will contain land that has an area that is not less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map – part of the Site which is zoned E3 Productivity Support is not identified on the Lot Size Map.

35. Accordingly, the court is satisfied the Proposed Development complies with the cl 4.1 because of the exception provided in cl 4.1A with the WWLEP.

36. Clause 4.2 applies to rural zones listed in cl 4.2(a) in the WWLEP, including RU1, and refers to rural lands, with consent, be subdivided for the purpose of primary production to create a lot of a size that is less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map. The terms of cl 4.2 of the WWLEP do not apply to the Proposed Development because consent is not sought to subdivide the RU1 land for the purpose of primary production or for a dwelling to be erected on proposed lot 11.

37. The Proposed Development does not seek consent to subdivide land in a manner contemplated by cl 4.6A(3) of the WWLEP.

38. The Site is not mapped on the Heritage Map pursuant to cl 5.10 of the WWLEP. The Site does not contain a heritage item, adjoin an item of heritage significance, is not listed in Schedule 5, and is not located within a heritage conservation area on the Heritage Map. Despite this, the terms of cl 5.10(2)(a)(ii) of the WWLEP are relevant because the Site is in an area which is known to comprise Aboriginal places of heritage significance. Accordingly, the Applicant relies on an Amended Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report prepared by Everick Heritage dated November 2024 which provides that it is highly likely that the Aboriginal sites located within the Site are of low scientific significance. Furthermore, given the number of negative test pits excavated within the areas of potential archaeological deposit, it is considered unlikely that Aboriginal sites of high scientific significance would be located elsewhere within the Site.

39. Pursuant to cl 5.10(8) of the WWLEP, provides the consent authority must consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance and notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate.

40. The effect of the Proposed Development has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration in this clause, and the local Aboriginal communities have been adequately notified as a result of the assessment process in accordance with the requisite guidelines for assessment set by Heritage NSW as a result of the following documents relied on by the Applicant:

1. Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment prepared by Biosis dated 28 February 2024 (Tab 4 of the Class 1 Application);

2. Amended Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report prepared by Everick Heritage dated November 2024 (Tab 5 of the Section 34 Agreement Bundle); and

1. Amended Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Habitat Planning dated October 2024 (Tab 6 of Exhibit CM-1).

41. The Site is mapped as bush fire prone pursuant to cl 5.11 of the WWLEP, however the Proposed Development does not seek consent for a residential subdivision and is not integrated development.

42. Clause 5.21 of the WWLEP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land the consent authority considers to be within the flood planning area unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters listed in cll 5.21(2) and 5.21(3). The Site is identified as flood planning area. The Site, including the adjoining Crown road and the Sturt Highway, is entirely located on the floodplain of the Murrumbidgee River. The main channel of the Murrumbidgee River is located approximately 900 metres to the north of the site. Riverina Water raises no concerns and requests the inclusion of condition requiring the applicant to obtain a Certificate of Compliance for water supply.

43. The land which is considered flood prone to a 1:100 year model is proposed lot 11 and a stormwater detention basin is proposed on lot 11. The Proposed Development has been designed for the lots 1 to 10 to be located outside the flood affected area. The Applicant relies on the following documents:

1. Civil drawings Revision Y prepared by Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers dated 28 November 2024;

2. Surface Water Assessment (Preliminary Memorandum) prepared by Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd dated 28 August 2024;

3. Flood Risk Statement prepared by Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd dated 10 October 2024; and

4. Amended Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Habitat Planning dated October 2024.

44. An assessment against cl 5.21 of the WWLEP is set out at pp 2 to 4 of the Flood Risk Statement prepared by Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd dated 10 October 2024 and notes that the Proposed Development is appropriately located on the higher portion of the Site in flood fringe. Appropriate freeboard will be incorporated into the design of all future buildings.

45. The Flood Impact Assessment prepared by Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd dated 28 August 2024 assessed flood impacts through detailed modelling and concluded that the Proposed Development would not adversely flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties.

46. Similarly, the Flood Risk Statement by Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd dated 10 October 2024 concludes that the Proposed Development will not adversely impact flood behaviour on surrounding properties. In accordance with the Flood Risk Management Plan prepared by Epicentre Consulting Engineers dated June 2024, the development is considered appropriate with consideration for the flood risk at the Site and in the site vicinity.

47. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied the Development Application complies with cl 5.21 of the WWLEP.

48. The Site is not mapped as an urban release area, accordingly, cl 6.2 of the LEP regarding public utility infrastructure does not apply.

49. A small portion of the Site located on the corner of each proposed lot 1 and 5 is identified as ‘Environmentally Sensitive Land’ on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map of the WWLEP. Clause 7.3(4) of the WWLEP regarding Biodiversity, provides that:

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is consistent with the objectives of this clause and—

(a)  the development is designed, sited and managed to avoid any potential adverse environmental impact, or

(b)  if a potential adverse impact cannot be avoided, the development—

(i)  is designed and sited so as to have minimum adverse impact, and

(ii)  incorporates effective measures so as to have minimal adverse impact, and

(iii)  mitigates any residual adverse impact through the restoration of any existing disturbed or modified area on the site.

50. There are no trees on the land which is identified as ‘Environmentally Sensitive Land’ on proposed Lot 5.

51. On proposed Lot 1, the trees which are proposed to be removed are in poor condition, have a short life expectancy and are structurally unsound as set out in the Arboriculture Impact Assessment Report prepared by Wade Ryan Contracting dated 28 November 2024. The proposed tree removal does not have an adverse impact as the Proposed Development only seeks that the trees be removed from the corner of the Lot 1. The parties note land identified as ‘Environmentally Sensitive Land’ is also shown in the road reserve (Sturt Highway) and properties along Sturt Highway where trees have already been removed.

52. A small portion of the Site which is zoned RU1 is identified as ‘Groundwater’ on the Water Resource Map of the WWLEP, accordingly development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters listed in cl 7.6(3)(a) to (c). The Proposed Development does not seek consent for works on land which is identified as ‘Groundwater’ and therefore is unlikely to adversely impact on existing groundwater services and future extraction from groundwater sources, and is designed to prevent adverse environmental impacts.

53. Clause 7.10 of the WWLEP does not apply because the Proposed Development is seeking consent for a subdivision and not a business premises in the E3 Productivity Support zone.

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 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:

56. The Court notes that:

1. the Respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed, under section 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending DA23/0157 in accordance with the documents listed below:

Amended Civil Plans
Plan name	Drawing Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Drawing Schedule	A0001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Overall Subdivision Plan	A0002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Subdivision Plan	A1000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Typical Sections 1/4	A2000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Typical Sections 2/4	A2001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Typical Sections 3/4	A2002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Typical Sections 4/4	A2003	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Bakers Lane Layout Plan	A1001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Road 1 Layout Plan	A1002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Road 2 Layout Plan	A1003	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Cut and Fill Plan	A3000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Bakers Lane	B1000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Cross Sections – Bakers Lane	B1001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long section 1&2 1/2	B2000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long section 1&2 2/2	B2001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Cross Sections 1&2 1/2	B2002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – KR01, KR02 & KR03	B3000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Cul De Sac 1&2	B4000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Stormwater Plan 1/3	A1101	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Stormwater Plan 2/3	A1102	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Stormwater Plan 3/3	A1103	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Catchment Plan	A1200	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 1/7	C1000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 2/7	C1001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 3/7	C1002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 4/7	C1003	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 5/7	C1004	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 6/7	C1005	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – stormwater 7/7	C1006	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Trickle Flow Pipe 1/3	C1100	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Trickle Flow Pipe 2/3	C1101	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Trickle Flow Pipe 3/3	C1102	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Sewer Plan	A1300	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Pump Station Lot Layout	A1301	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Sewer Plan – Rising Main	A1302	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Sewer 1/2	C2001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Long Section – Sewer 2/2	C2002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Round About Layout Plan	A3000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Existing Services Diagram 1/2	A4000	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Existing Services Diagram 2/2	A4001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
B Triple Turning Path 1/2	TP1001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
B Triple Turning Path 2/2	TP1002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
B Double Turning Path	TP1003	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Details 1/3	DE1001	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Details 2/3	DE1002	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Details 3/3	DE1003	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Sediment and Erosion Control Details	DE1004	Y	28 November 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineers
Reports
Report name	Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Amended Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report	-	4	19 November 2024	Everick Heritage
Flood Risk Statement	-	-	10 October 2024	Cumulus Engineering Pty Ltd
Statement in response to clause 7.1A of the LEP	210516	-	10 October 2024	Xeros Piccolo Consulting Engineering
Statement in response to clause 7.1A of the LEP	-	-	22 November 2024	Habitat Planning
Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report	-	-	29 November 2024	Wade Ryan Contracting
Flood Risk Management	25160	2	June 2024	Epicentre Consulting Engineers

Orders:

57. The Court orders:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development consent is granted to DA23/0157 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and farm storage buildings and subdivision of existing lots into 11 lots for the purpose of future enterprise at 3870 Sturt Highway, Gumly Gumly subject to conditions of consent annexed and marked ‘Annexure A’.

3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs ‘thrown away’ as a result the amendment of the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

Amended Civil Plans 

**********

Decision last updated: 31 December 2024