Croftstar Pty Ltd ATF the Croftstar Investment Trust v City of Canada Bay Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1728

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Croftstar Pty Ltd ATF the Croftstar Investment Trust v City of Canada Bay Council [2025] NSWLEC 1728

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference on 26 September 2025

Date of orders:

7 October 2025

Decision date:

07 October 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Horton C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the agreed sum of $6,000.00 within 28 days of the date of this order.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Consent is granted to DA2024/0203 for a boundary adjustment, demolition of existing structures and construction of residential flat building and shop top housing development and associated car parking at 1 and 7 Ramsay Road and 5-7 Harrabook Avenue, Five Dock subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: residential apartment development in E1 Local Centre zone – conciliation conference – agreement between parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

Architects Act 2003 (NSW)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.46, 8.7, 8.15

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34

Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), s 90

Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 4.3, 4.4, 5.21, 5.22, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 29, 38, Sch 7

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 144, 145, 147, 148

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, s 2.1

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.48

Texts Cited:

City of Canada Bay Development Control Plan Amendment 18

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Croftstar Pty Ltd ATF the Croftstar Investment Trust (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Siv (Solicitor) (Applicant)
R McCulloch (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/154252

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal is brought under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) following the refusal by the City of Canada Bay Council of development application DA2024/0203 (DA) that sought consent for a boundary adjustment, demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building and shop top housing development and associated car parking at 1 and 7 Ramsay Road and 5-7 Harrabrook Avenue, Five Dock (Site).

2. The DA was lodged by the Applicant in these proceedings, Croftstar Pty Ltd ATF The Croftstar Investment Trust (Croftstar) on 21 October 2024 and was publicly notified by the Council between 21 October 2024 and 11 November 2024.

3. The DA was refused by the Council on 29 January 2025, and Croftstar appealed the refusal under s 8.7 of the EPA Act.

4. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, on 26 September 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference, prior to which the parties agreed to certain amendments that would resolve the contentions.

5. A signed agreement was submitted to the Court on 25 September 2025, in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act. The agreement records the approval of the Council, as the relevant consent authority, to the amending of the application in accordance with s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation), and the filing of the amended application with the Court, in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, which were effected prior to the conciliation conference.

6. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the DA.

7. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ signed agreement if the Court could have made that decision in the proper exercise of its functions.

8. The parties have identified the jurisdictional pre-conditions that must be satisfied before the Court can exercise its functions under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of these proceedings and grant the orders sought. In that regard, I note the jurisdictional preconditions that follow.

9. The site is located within an area designated by the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013 (CBLEP) as E1 Local Centre, in which shop top housing is permitted with consent, where consistent with the following objectives for development in the zone:

•  To provide a range of retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in or visit the area.

•  To encourage investment in local commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

•  To enable residential development that contributes to a vibrant and active local centre and is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

•  To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

•  To provide for a range of small-scale services and employment opportunities within walking distance of residential housing.

The height of buildings development standard is exceeded

10. The site is subject to varying height limits under cl 4.3 of the CBLEP. Lot 5 DP 310522 and Lot A DP 310522 to the west of the site are identified on the relevant Height of Buildings Map at cl 4.3(2) with a maximum building height of 10.5m. The DA as amended is for development with a maximum height of 13.47m.

11. Lot B DP 415618 and Lot D DP 415618, to the east of the site, is identified on the relevant Height of Buildings Map with a maximum building height of 14.5m. The DA as amended is for development with a maximum height of 17m.

12. A written request prepared by GYDE dated 25 August 2025 (the Height Request) identifies the proposed variation to the relevant height standard as follows:

1. To the west of the site, the rooftop terrace structure results in a maximum variation of approximately 2970mm above the height plane for a length of 1940mm, resulting in a maximum height of 13.47m or a variation of 28.2%.

2. To the east of the site, the lift overrun results in a maximum variation of approximately 2500mm above the height plane for a length of 1.5m, and result in a maximum height of 17m or RL 21.300 or a variation of 17.2%.

13. I am satisfied the Height Request demonstrates that compliance with the height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard notwithstanding the non-compliance.

14. The objectives at cl 4.3 of the CBLEP are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the desired future character of the locality and positively contribute to the streetscape and public spaces,

(b)  to protect the amenity of residential accommodation, neighbouring properties and public spaces in terms of—

(i)  visual and acoustic privacy, and

(ii)  solar access and view sharing,

(c)  to establish a transition in scale between medium and high density centres and adjoining lower density and open space zones to protect local amenity,

(d)  to ensure that buildings respond to the natural topography of the area.

15. The parties agree, and I am satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the desired future character of the locality for the reasons outlined at pp 8-9 of the Height Request, and will not result in any unreasonable amenity outcomes relating to built form or scale, views, solar access, privacy or visual impacts to surrounding properties or within the locality.

16. I am also satisfied that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard. In broad terms, those grounds advanced in the Height Request include:

1. An increase in height due to agreement between the parties as to an appropriate allowance for freeboard above possible flood levels.

2. The demonstrated lack of adverse amenity impacts arising from the exceedance, and

3. certain actions taken to minimise the exceedance.

17. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the height request should be upheld.

The floor space ratio development standard is exceeded

18. The site is identified on the relevant map at cl 4.4(2) of the CBLEP with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.71:1. The proposed development has a FSR of 1.73:1. Croftstar relies on a written request to vary this development standard prepared by GYDE dated 9 September 2025 (the FSR Request).

19. The parties agree the exceedance results from six (6) residential carparking spaces located within the basement, and which exceed the requirements for residential apartments under the City of Canada Bay Development Control Plan Amendment 18 (CBDCP).

20. As these car parking spaces are considered additional to the requirements of the CBDCP, as amended by Amendment 18 on 26 June 2025, the area is to be included in the calculation of ‘Gross Floor Area’.

21. I am satisfied the FSR Request demonstrates that compliance with the height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard notwithstanding the non-compliance.

22. The objectives at cl 4.4 of the CBLEP are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the bulk, scale, streetscape and desired future character of the locality,

(b)  to provide a suitable balance between landscaping and built form,

(c)  to minimise overshadowing of, and loss of privacy to, neighbouring properties,

(d)  to maximise solar access and amenity for public places,

(e)  to manage the visual impact of development when viewed from public places, including the Parramatta River.

23. The parties agree, and I am satisfied, that additional parking is provided within the basement and does not require further excavation. The proposed variation will not result in any unreasonable amenity outcomes relating to built form or scale, views, solar access, privacy or visual impacts to surrounding properties or within the locality.

24. The FSR Request also asserts four environmental planning grounds are sufficient to justify the contravention that may be summarised as follows:

1. Firstly, the proposal complies with car parking rates published in the CBDCP that was in force at the time of lodgement, and so apply by virtue of the relevant savings provision.

2. Secondly, despite the exceedance now evident, the proposal otherwise complies with controls in respect of landscaping, built form, setbacks, and height.

3. Thirdly as the exceedance is limited to the basement, requiring no additional excavation, no impact arises from the exceedance.

4. Fourthly, when the current parking rates for retail uses is considered, the total number of car parking spaces is consistent with Council’s controls.

25. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of clauses 4.4 of the CBLEP, for those reasons summarised above.

Other jurisdictional preconditions

26. Clause 5.21 (Flood Planning) of CBLEP provides that the consent authority must not grant consent to a development unless it is satisfied of the matters in clauses 5.21(2) and 5.21(3). The site is not identified as being in a flood planning area. However, the site is identified in a flood study carried out by the former Ashfield Council and Sydney Water on the Dobroyd Canal. This study confirmed that a portion of the site is potentially inundated in the 1% and PMF flooding events (see page 17 and 18 of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by PM Anderson Consulting Pty Ltd dated October 2024

27. Chapter B8 Flood Control of the City of Canda Bay Development Control Plan 2017 (DCP), majority of the site is identified as a Low Flood Risk. However, the south-western portion of the site is within the 1% AEP extent with a low flood risk classification and accordingly designated as Medium Flood Risk (see page 17 and 20 of the Amended Flood Impact Assessment Report prepared by Torrent Consulting dated 27 August 2025 in Tab 13 of the Section 34 Agreement Bundle. As a result, the parties have agreed that the finished floor levels on the ground floor should be 3.75m AHD (1% AEP + 0.5 freeboard) (see plan DA-100 in Tab 4 of the Section 34 Agreement Bundle).

28. The Amended Flood Impact Assessment Report which confirms that the proposed development is appropriately designed to meet all flooding and risk management requirements stipulated within Clauses 5.21 and 5.22 of the CBLEP, as well as the DCP, including compliance with the flood planning level and to mitigate flood risk to the site.

29. Accordingly, I accept the proposal is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land; will not increase flood risk or affect flood behaviour, nor affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people in the event of a flood, and will not adversely affect the environment in the event of a flood. Finally, I accept that the proposal incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood.

30. The site is identified within an area of Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils according to the relevant map at cl 6.1(2) of the CBLEP and is within 500m of land mapped as Class 2 soils. The proposed development seeks consent for 2 levels of basement parking. An Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan prepared by GSNE Services Pty Ltd dated 22 July 2025 concludes acid sulfate soils are likely present on the site and proposes onsite testing and safe storage of any acid sulfate soils excavated as part of the proposed works and conditions to this effect are incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent.

31. The development proposes excavation for the purpose of a basement. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoEnviro Consultancy dated January 2024 assesses the subsurface conditions, noting groundwater was encountered at shallow depths and so a tanked basement is recommended. When read in conjunction with the Amended Concept Stormwater Plans prepared by Tekcivil dated 25 August 2025 (Stormwater Plans), and the amended Landscape Plans prepared by EBLA, I accept that the proposed earthworks are unlikely to result in adverse off-site impacts. On the basis of those preceding documents, I consider those matters at cl 6.2(3) of the CBLEP in respect of earthworks to be satisfactorily addressed, and supported by agreed conditions of consent.

32. The site is identified on the relevant map at cl 6.5(2) of the CBLEP as ‘Active Street Frontages’. A portion of Ramsay Road and Henly Marine Drive is identified as an active street frontage. That portion of the street frontage consists of commercial tenancies, residential entrance and access for fire services. When the terms of the provision are understood, I am satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage.

33. I am satisfied that the site is currently serviced by those utilities required to be made available by the provision at cl 6.10(1) of the CBLEP.

34. As the proposed development is for a residential flat building comprises more than 10 dwellings, cl 6.11 of the CBLEP operates to require a mix of dwelling sizes set out at subcl (3). On the basis of the Unit Schedule Summary on architectural drawing DA-100, I am satisfied that the mix of dwelling sizes complies.

35. I note that a contribution is to be made by Croftstar for the purposes of affordable housing in the local government area in accordance with cl 6.12 of the CBLEP. An agreed condition of consent to this effect is at Condition 27.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

36. Where an application relates to residential apartment development of a kind identified at s 144(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP), s 29 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation) requires the application be accompanied by a statement by a qualified designer, defined in the Dictionary at sch 7 as a person registered as an architect in accordance with the Architects Act 2003 (NSW).

37. The statement is required by s 29 of the EPA Regulation to verify matters that are relevant to those matters that must be taken into consideration when determining a development application for residential apartment development, at s 147 of the Housing SEPP.

38. I note the Council referred the proposal to a design review panel in accordance with s 145(2) of the Housing SEPP. I have considered that advice in accordance with s 147(1)(c).

39. The statement prepared by Mr Vince Squillace dated 24 September 2025 (Arch Reg No 6468) is consistent with the requirements at s 29 of the EPA Regulation, and so assists the Court in considering those matters at ss 147, 148 and 149 of the Housing SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

40. As the proposed development is within close proximity of overhead electricity power lines, s 2.48(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP) requires written notice to be given to the electricity supply authority and for any response to be taken into consideration.

41. The DA was referred to Ausgrid in accordance with s 2.48 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP. Ausgrid provided a response and does not object to the proposal, subject to standard conditions relating to safe work practices in proximity to electricity assets that are incorporated into agreed conditions of consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

42. The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as identified by the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. As such, the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) apply to the site

43. Stormwater Plans cited at [31] provide for on site detention (OSD) with a water quality chamber containing stormfilters, and sets out the results of MUSIC modelling that predicts the reduction in certain pollutants. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed development ensures that, firstly, the effect on the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial, and secondly, that the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised in accordance with s 6.6 of the Biodiversity SEPP.

44. For similar reasons I have also considered those matter at s 6.7 of the Biodiversity SEPP and am satisfied that the retention of water and post development flows will keep any direct, indirect or cumulative impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation to a minimum, and will not have an adverse impact on aquatic reserves, or in terms of erosion.

45. I note that while the site is not identified as flood liable land to which s 6.8 of the Biodiversity SEPP is directed, a Flood Impact Assessment prepared by Torrent Consulting dated 27 August 2025 models flood conditions at 1% AEP and Probable Maximum Flood levels concludes that the development will not have an adverse impact on the natural recession of floodwaters into wetlands or other riverine environments. Neither will the proposal have an impact on recreational land uses or access to public land, in terms set out in s 6.9 of the Biodiversity SEPP, because of its limited encroachment into the existing inundation area of the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

46. I have considered whether the land is contaminated and, on the basis of the following documents, I conclude it can be made suitable for the development proposed, in accordance with s 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021:

1. A Detailed Site Investigation prepared by Aargus dated 11 September 2024 which concludes the site will be suitable subject to the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP);

2. An amended RAP, prepared by Aargus and dated 28 July 2025 concludes that the site will be suitable subject to the implementation of remediation and validation works in accordance with the RAP; and

3. A letter of Interim Audit Advice prepared by Geosyntec Consultants Pty Ltd dated 29 July 2025 concludes that the amended RAP is capable of rendering the site suitable for the proposed development, subject to the requirements set out in section 5.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022

47. The application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate for 39 apartment dwellings (Cert No. 1813009M dated 15 September 2025) prepared by Michael Khoury in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable Buildings SEPP).

48. Embodied emissions are quantified in the BASIX Certificate, such that the Court can be satisfied that the embodied emissions attributable to the proposed development have been quantified in accordance with s 2.1(5) of the Sustainable Buildings SEPP.

Development is integrated development

49. The proposed development is integrated development under s 4.46 of the EPA Act as it requires the following authorisation under s 91 of the Water Management Act 2000 for reasons related to the proposed basement excavation levels that will be below the depth of the standing groundwater table, according to the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd dated January 2024.

50. On 11 December 2024, Water NSW issued its General Terms of Approval that are incorporated into the agreed conditions of consent.

Conclusion

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. The Court notes that:

1. The City of Canada Bay Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved, under s 38(1) of the EPA Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending Development Application No DA 2024/0203 in accordance with the documents listed below:

Amended Architectural Plans
Plan name	Drawing ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Cover Sheet, Drawing List, Site Location Plan	DA-001	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Photomontage Sheet 1	DA-005	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Photomontage Sheet 2	DA-006	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Site Analysis Plan	DA-010	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Site Plan	DA-011	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Demolition Plan Ground Level	DA-030	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Basement Level	DA-099	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Ground Level	DA-100	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Level 1	DA-101	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Level 2	DA-102	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Level 3	DA-103	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Floor Plan Level 4	DA-104	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Elevations Sheet 1	DA-200	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Elevations Sheet 2	DA-201	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sections Sheet 1	DA-301	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sections Sheet 2	DA-302	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Driveway Cross Section	DA-350	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Basement 2 Ramp Section	DA-351	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Shadow Diagrams	DA-450	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sun’s Eye View Sheet 1	DA-460	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sun’s Eye View Sheet 2	DA-461	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
GFA & FSR Calculations	DA-501	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Adaptable Unit Layout 1	DA-541	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Adaptable Unit Layout 2	DA-542	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Adaptable Unit Layout 3	DA-543	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Building Height Plane Diagram Sheet 1	DA-550	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Building Height Plane Diagram Sheet 2	DA-551	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Solar Access Plans	DA-601	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Cross Ventilation Plans	DA-602	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Storage Calculations	DA-603	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Deep Soil Calculations and Privacy Plans	DA-604	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Communal Open Space and Landscaping Site Coverage	DA-605	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Path of Travel Diagrams	DA-606	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sections Sheet 1	DA-800	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sections Sheet 2	DA-801	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Sections Sheet 3	DA-802	N	9 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Amended Landscaping Plans
Plan name	Drawing Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Title	-	-	9 September 2025	EBLA
Site Survey	EBLA-LD-G02	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Tree Retention and Onsite Nursey Plan	EBLA-LD-TR01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
General Arrangement Plan	EBLA-LD-GA01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Groundfloor Planting Plan	EBLA-LD-PL01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Level One and Level Two Podium Planters	EBLA-LD-PD01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Level 3 - Roof Garden	EBLA-LD-PD02	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Level 3 Planting Layout	EBLA-LD-PD03	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Level 4 Communal and Private Roof Garden	EBLA-LD-PD04	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Level 4 Roof Garden	EBLA-LD-PD05	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Cross Sections	EBLA-LD-CR01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Indicative Landscape Detail	EBLA-LD-DE01	E	9 September 2025	EBLA
Amended Stormwater Plans
Plan name	Drawing Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Drawing List and Locality Plan	C1.01	04	25 August 2025	Tekcivil
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and Details	C2.01	04	25 August 2025	Tekcivil
Concept Stormwater Management Plan	C3.01	04	25 August 2025	Tekcivil
OSD and Water Quality Chamber Plan and Details	C4.01	04	25 August 2025	Tekcivil
Drains and Music Model Catchment Plan and Results	C4.02	04	25 August 2025	Tekcivil
Plan of Subdivision
Plan name	Drawing Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Plan of Subdivision of Lots 1, 2 & 5 in D310522, Lots A, B & D in DP415618 and Lot 1 in DP 241337	9104	A	30 January 2024	SDS Pty Ltd
Amended Reports
Report name	Ref	Revision	Date	Prepared by
Schedule of Amendments	PAR1903 1 & 7 Ramsay Rd, 5-7 Harrabrook Ave Five Dock	-	8 September 2025	Squillace
Amended Traffic and Parking Assessment Report	Ref 23104	-	19 August 2025	Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd
Amended Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings	-	Final	25 August 2025	Gyde
Clause 4.6 Variation Request – Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio (without prejudice)	-	Final	9 September 2025	Gyde
DRAINS models	-	-	August 2025	Tekcivil
MUSIC models	-	-	August 2025	Tekcivil
Amended Flood Impact Assessment for 1 Ramsay Road & 1-7 Harrabrook Avenue, Five Dock	DJL: LT2499.003.docx	-	27 August 2025	Torrent Consulting Pty Ltd
Amended Operational Waste Management Plan	Report No. 5385	H	9 September 2025	Elephant’s Foot Consulting Pty Ltd
Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan	ES8303/3	0	22 July 2025	GSNE Services Pty Ltd
Amended Remediation Action Plan	ES8303/2-Rev1	1	28 July 2025	Aargus
Engineering Advice	250539 01	-	6 August 2025	Adams Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
Letter of Interim Audit Advice 1 (IA1) – Endorsement of Remediation Action Plan for1- 7 Ramsay Road and Part of 5 & 7 Harrabrook Avenue, Five Dock NSW	AU125119 Croftstar IA1	-	29 July 2025	Geosyntec
Arboricultural Impact Assessment	NL_1 Ramsay_AIARev_090925	2	9 September 2025	New Leaf Arboriculture Pty Ltd
Supplementary Arboricultural Impact Assessment	-	-	14 April 2021	New Leaf Arboriculture Pty Ltd
Amended Apartment Design Guide Verification Statement	-	-	24 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Amended Key ADG / Housing SEPP Requirements	PAR1903	B	24 September 2025	Squillace Architecture / Interiors
Amended BASIX Certificate	1813009M	-	15 September 2025	Michael Khoury

2. Croftstar filed the amended plans and other documents listed above with the Court on 26 September 2025.

Orders

54. The Court orders that:

1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed sum of $6,000.00 within 28 days of the date of this order.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Development Consent is granted to DA2024/0203 for a boundary adjustment, demolition of existing structures and construction of residential flat building and shop top housing development and associated car parking at 1 and 7 Ramsay Road and 5-7 Harrabook Avenue, Five Dock subject to conditions set out in Annexure A.

T Horton

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (420 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 07 October 2025