HPG Lauderdale Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1705

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

HPG Lauderdale Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2025] NSWLEC 1705

Hearing dates:

Conciliation conference 19 September 2025

Date of orders:

30 September 2025

Decision date:

30 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Dickson C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant is granted leave to amend development application DA/2024/1562 in accordance with plans and documents listed at [8] of the judgment.

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

(3) The appeal is upheld.

(4) Development Application DA/2024/1562 for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a residential flat building comprising 5 residential apartment and carparking for 11 vehicles, Strata Subdivision, landscaping and associated infrastructure at 5 Lauderdale Avenue, Fairlight (Lot A DP 24923) is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building – conciliation conference – amended plans and documents – agreement between the parties – orders made.

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 8.7

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s34

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 23, 27, 38

Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.9, 6.12

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 2, 6 Pt 2.3, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Ch 4 s 144, 147, Sch 9

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, Ch 2 ss 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.6

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.119

Cases Cited:

Fairlight Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1615

Texts Cited:

Manly Development Control Plan 2013

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

HPG Project Lauderdale Pty Ltd (Applicant 1)
COP Project Lauderdale Pty Ltd (Applicant 2)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Garnock, solicitor (Applicants)
B Lennox, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicants)
Storey and Gough (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/50121

Publication restriction:

No

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) by HPG Project Lauderdale Pty Ltd and COP Project Lauderdale Pty Ltd (the Applicants) against the deemed refusal of their development application DA/2024/1562The development application, as amended, seeks consent for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a residential flat building comprising 5 residential apartment and carparking for 11 vehicles, Strata Subdivision, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The development is proposed 5 Lauderdale Avenue, Fairlight (Lot A DP 24923) (the site).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 28 August 2025. Following the conciliation conference, the Applicant made amendments to their development application responsive to the Respondent's contentions, however the conciliation was ultimately terminated and the matter listed for hearing.

3. 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 September 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 19 September 2025. I presided over the further conciliation conference.

4. The amended development application includes the following broad amendments:

1. Lowering of the overall building by 700mm through a reduction in floor levels.

2. Deletion of clerestory windows at the rear, reducing the building height by 1.627m,

3. A reduction in basement excavation.

4. Increased setback of the proposed building to the reserve.

5. Building changes to facilitate a six-metre setback to the southern boundary.

6. Side setback (west) increased to facilitate view sharing.

7. Deletion of trafficable terrace to the northern end of the eastern boundary to improve privacy to the adjoining property.

8. Introduction of privacy screening where required to the eastern and western boundaries.

5. 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). I form this state of satisfaction on the basis that:

1. The Applicant’s are the owners of the land and provided consent to the lodgement of the development application, satisfying s 23(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

2. The development application was publicly notified by the Respondent between 2 December 2024 and 21 January 2025. A total of 72 submissions were received. The plans proposed for approval in this judgment have been amended and additional information provided, in part in response to the concerns raised by submissions. A number of residents also addressed the Court at the commencement of the second conciliation conference. I am satisfied that the submissions have been considered in the determination of the development application by either amendment to the application or in the imposition of conditions of consent: subs 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act.

3. 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.

4. Pursuant to Chapter 2 -Coastal Management of SEPP RH the site is identified as being within the “Coastal Use Area” and the “Coastal Environment Area”. As the site is mapped as being within the Foreshores and Waterways Area ss 2.10 and 2.11 do not apply to the development. However, pursuant to s 2.12 prior to the grant of consent the consent authority must be satisfied that firstly that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land. The development application proposed excavation to facilitate the basement carpark and is accompanied by a Geotechnical and Risk Assessment Report from Crozier Geotechnical Consultants. That report concludes that the site is considered suitable for the proposed development and risks can be maintained within the acceptable risk management criteria subject to the implementation of the report’s recommendations. Compliance with the report’s recommendations in required by the conditions of consent in Annexure A. Section 2.12 of SEPP RH is satisfied.

5. Further, the consent authority, at s 2.13, into consideration the relevant provisions of any certified coastal management program that applies to the land. No such management plan applies to the site.

6. The site has frontage to Lauderdale Avenue which is a classified road. The provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy Transport and Infrastructure 2021 (SEPP TI) apply. Pursuant to s 2.119 of SEPP TI the consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied of the matters listed at s 2.119(2), which are:

(a)  where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b)  the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of—

(i)  the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii)  the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii)  the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c)  the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

7. There is no alternative road available to provide access to the site. The development application is accompanied by a traffic impact assessment (TIA). Section 6.1 of the TIA confirms that the proposed vehicular access arrangements at the development have been designed in accordance with the relevant width, grade, and visibility requirements of the respective Australian Standards and are considered satisfactory as well as confirming facilitation of two-way passing of vehicles and assessment using swept path analysis confirming the proposed access arrangement will operate safely and efficiently. The TIA also confirms that the development will generate a net increase of only two vehicle trips per hour which the parties agree will have no impact on the regional classified road. Further, the annexed conditions require any dust generation from construction to be appropriately managed. On this basis I accept the agreement of the parties that the safety and efficiency an ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development.

8. I accept that, on the following basis, the proposal has been appropriately located and designed to reduce traffic noise and vehicle emissions, and includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road by:

1. All windows, apart from louvre windows, are double glazed to ameliorate traffic noise,

2. The building has been designed to include solid roof overhang and balconies with solid blockwork balustrades to the north side of the building to reflect noise away from windows.

3. Landscaping has been maximised to reduce impact of emissions and noise levels. A green roof over the car lift, a deep soil zone at ground level and landscaping along the street fence and side boundaries create a buffer zone between the road and the dwellings.

4. The front fence has been designed to include screening to reduce noise

5. External walls have been designed as blockwork with insulation and cladding to improve acoustic qualities within units.

6. Most bedrooms and primary living spaces have been oriented away from Lauderdale Avenue or boast dual aspect.

9. The amended development application provides an updated BASIX Certificate as required pursuant to s 27 of the EPA Regulation. Section 2.1(5) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022(SEPP Sustainable Buildings) 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.

10. Chapter 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing) applies to the development application as it meets the matters prescribed at s 144(3), namely:

1. the erection of a new residential flat building,

2. that building is over 3 storeys (not including carparking); and

3. the building contains at least 4 dwellings

11. Section 147 of the SEPP Housing mandates that the consent authority consider three matters. Firstly, the quality of the design of the development, evaluated in accordance with the design principles for residential apartment development set out in Sch 9 the Housing SEPP. Secondly, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and thirdly, any advice received from a design review panel within 14 days of the referral of the matter to them.

12. The Applicant submitted a Design Verification Statement and ADG Assessment as part of the development application. With the benefit of those documents and reviewing the plans, I have considered the design principles and the ADG and accept the agreement of the parties that those matters have been addressed by the amended development application. Further, the development was considered by the Respondent’s Design and Sustainability Panel whose

13. The proposed development seeks consent for the removal of 11 trees as set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Jacksons Nature Works. 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. Further, the development application is accompanied by a landscape design which proposed the replacement planting of a number of canopy trees to offset this impact.

14. The Site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment in accordance with the maps in SEPP BC. The provisions of Ch 6 of SEPP BC include jurisdictional prerequisites to be satisfied that relate to the water catchment. In particular those contained in ss 6.6(2), 6.7(2), 6.8(2), 6.9(2) and 6.10 relating to water quality and quantity; aquatic ecology; flooding; recreation and public access; and total catchment management. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Court can be satisfied these preconditions are met. In reaching this state of satisfaction I rely on:

1. The amended stormwater plans prepared by SCP Engineers Development Consultants

2. The Statement of Environmental Effects by Boston Blyth Fleming

3. The Flora and Fauna Assessment Report byt GIS Environmental Consultants.

15. I accept the agreement of the parties that I can be satisfied that:

1. the amended stormwater design will ensure that there will be no impact on water flow and a beneficial effect on the quality or water entering any natural waterbodies due, in part, to the existing lack of filtration or any other treatment mechanisms on the site in comparison to those proposed by the development.

2. The proposed development also keeps to a minimum any direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation, will not have a direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on aquatic reserves or wetlands and otherwise minimises the erosion of land or the creation of sedimentation impacts.

3. the site is not located within the flood planning area, considered to be flood liable or within proximity of a natural waterbody and is therefore unlikely to impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems or otherwise affect recreational land use or public access to and from foreshores or natural waterbodies. I accept the agreement of the parties that , the proposed development is very unlikely to have any impact on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems.

4. For the purposes of s 6.9 of the SEPP BC, the proposed development does not affect public access to and from natural water bodies.

5. For the purposes of s 6.10 of the SEPP BC, the proposed development is not likely to have an adverse environmental impact on any adjacent local government area.

6. For the purposes of s 6.11 of the SEPP BC, the proposed development is not located on land within 100 metres of a natural waterbody in a regulated catchment.

7. Further, stormwater control and management is appropriately addressed in the conditions in Annexure A.

16. I am satisfied that the provisions of SEPP BC are met.

17. The Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LEP 2013) applies to the site. Pursuant to LEP 2013 the site is zoned C4 Environmental Living. In determining the development application, I have given consideration to the zone objectives. The proposed use residential flat buildings is permitted in the zone.

18. Demolition is permitted with consent pursuant to cl 2.7 of LEP 2013.

19. Pursuant to cl 4.3 Height of Buildings the maximum building height applicable to the site is 8.5m. The proposed development breaches the development standard by 2.8m. The development application seeks a variation to the development standard pursuant to cl 4.6 of LEP 2013. The development application is accompanied by a written request to vary the standard. I have read the written request prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners and in accordance with cl 4.6 of LEP 2013, I am satisfied that:

1. 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 2013). 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. The proposed development will offer a compatible streetscape presentation and is consistent with the desired future character.

2. 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 2013). In particular, I find that the reasons articulated in written request in relation to the topography of the site and the complimentary nature of the southern elevation with the streetscape of the adjoining properties and the locality to be sufficient.

3. The states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of LEP 2013 have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development, notwithstanding the breach of the Height control.

20. Further, the development application seeks to vary the standard for Floor Space Ratio (FSR) at cl 4.4 of LEP 2013. The development application, as amended, has an FSR of 1.07:1 which varies the applicable standard of 0.6:1. The development application is accompanied by a written request to vary the standard. I have read the written request prepared by Boston Blyth Fleming Town Planners and in accordance with cl 4.6 of LEP 2013, I am satisfied that:

1. The written request demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary on the basis that the objectives of the FSR control are met, notwithstanding the numeric variation (cl 4.6(3)(a) of LEP 2013). I find that the objectives of the FSR standard are met, notwithstanding the variation to the standard for the reasons detailed in the written request which I adopt. The proposed development will offer a compatible streetscape presentation and is consistent with the desired future character. The parties agree, and I accept that the View Impact Assessment demonstrates that view impacts arising from the development are consistent with objective (b) of the FSR standard and minimise any adverse impact on the use of adjoining land and the public domain.

2. 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 2013). In particular, I find that the reasons articulated in written request in relation to the topography of the site and the complimentary nature of the southern elevation with the streetscape of the adjoining properties and the locality to be sufficient. This is consistent with the reasoning in 30 Fairlight Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1615 at [46] which I adopt.

1. The states of satisfaction required by cl 4.6 of LEP 2013 have been reached and there is therefore power to grant development consent to the proposed development, notwithstanding the breach of the FSR control.

21. The site is not a listed heritage item, nor is it located with a heritage conservation area. However, the development application is accompanied by a Heritage impact assessment by Weir Phillips and an Aboriginal due diligence report by Everick Heritage. The parties agree and I accept that the proposed development will have a neutral impact on the locally listed heritage item is the locality. Further, the annexed conditions include appropriate management of any unexpected archaeological finds.

22. Pursuant to cl 6.1 Acid Sulfate Soils of LEP 2013 the site is identified as being affected by Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map. The development application does not propose works that are likely to lower the water table nor is the site within 500m of adjacent Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 land. I accept that I can be satisfied that the requirements of cl 6.1 of LEP 2013 have been met.

23. Clause 6.2 ‘Earthworks’ of LEP 2013 requires the consent to consider certain matters prior to the grant of consent. Clause 6.2 Earthworks applies as the development application involves excavation for the basement and lift pit. The development application is accompanied by a geotechnical report prepared by Gozier Geotechnical Consultants. I accept the agreement of the parties that based on the findings and recommendations of this report I can be satisfied that the excavation proposed in the development application will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. Further, appropriate conditions of consent have been included to address required earthworks and the potential impacts of same. In determining whether to grant development consent, I have given consideration to the matters at cl 6.2 and find that none warrant the refusal of the applicant.

24. Clause 6.4 ‘Stormwater’ of LEP 2013 requires the consent authority to give consideration to the listed matters in determining a development application. With the assistance of the stormwater engineering plans prepared by SCP Consulting I accept the agreement of the parties that in considering those matters none warrant the refusal of the development application.

25. The site is identified as “Biodiversity” on the biodiversity map under LEP 2013. Pursuant to cl 6.5 the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

(b)  if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided by adopting feasible alternatives—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)  if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

26. Further, the consent authority must consider the matters listed at cl 6.5(3) of LEP 2013. The development application is accompanied by a Flora and Fauna Assessment which concludes that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on any Threatened Species, Populations or Endangered Ecological Communities. Further it concludes that no further assessment is required. The parties agree, and I accept, that the requirements of cl 6.5 are met as the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact. I accept the agreement of the parties that in considering the matters at cl 6.5(3) of LEP 2013 none warrant the refusal of the development application.

27. The site is identified as ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area” on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map. Pursuant to cl 6.9 of LEP 2013 the consent authority cannot grant consent to development in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area without considering the matters listed at sub cl (3). Those matters are:

(a)  impacts that are of detriment to the visual amenity of harbour or coastal foreshore, including overshadowing of the foreshore and any loss of views from a public place to the foreshore,

(b)  measures to protect and improve scenic qualities of the coastline,

(c)  suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with and impact on the foreshore,

(d)  measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities.

28. The development application is accompanied by a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA). With the assistance of the VIA I accept the agreement of the parties that the proposed development will not overshadow the foreshore and will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon harbour views from public places to the foreshore. When viewed from the waterway the parties agree, and I accept that, that the proposed development will be complementary and compatible with surrounding development. I accept I can be satisfied that the provisions of cl 6.9 of LEP 2013.

29. Pursuant to cl 6.12 ‘Essential Services’ I am satisfied that the site is currently, and will remain, serviced by the listed services.

30. Manly Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013) applies to the site. The documents filed with the application detail the compliance of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of the DCP 2013. In determining the development application, I have considered the provisions of the development control plan: s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.

6. 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)).

7. 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

8. The Court notes that the agreed orders of the parties include the Court exercising the function under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to grant leave to the Applicant further amending Development Application DA2024/1562 to include the following documents:

1	Amended Architectural plans (up to Rev s.34 – 4) prepared by Platform Architects • DA0000 - Cover Sheet – Rev S.34-4, 25 August 2025 • DA0500 – Excavation Plan – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA1000 – Basement – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA1001 – Lower Ground Floor – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA1002 – Upper Ground Floor – Rev S.34-3, 25 August 2025 • DA1003 – Level 1 – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA1004 – Level 2 – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA1005 – Roof – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA2000 – North/South Elevation – Rev S.34-3, 25 August 2025 • DA2001 – West/East Elevation – Rev S.34-3, 25 August 2025 • DA3000 – Section A – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA3001 - Sections B & C & D – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA4000(1) – Windows Schedule – Rev S.34-1, 19 August 2025 • DA5100 – GFA Summary – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5200 – Open Space – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5201 – Landscape – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5300 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5301 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5302 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5303 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5304 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5305 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5306 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5306.1 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5307 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5308 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5309 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5310 – Shadow Diagrams – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5400 – View from the sun – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5401 – View from the sun – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5402 – View from the sun – Rev S.34-2, 12 August 2025 • DA5500 – Height Analysis – Rev S.34-2, 12, August 2025 • DA5501 – Height Analysis – Rev S.34-2, 12, August 2025 • DA5502 – Height Analysis – Rev S.34-2, 12, August 2025	12 August 2025 – 25 August 2025
2	9 Amended Landscape Plans prepared by Paul Scrivener Landscape Architect (issue H) • Sheet 1 of 3 - Lower & Upper ground level plan • Sheet 2 of 3 - Level 1 plan • Sheet 3 of 3 - Planting & details plans	12 August 2025
3	10 Stormwater Plans (Rev B) prepared by SCP Engineers and Development Consultants • C-03-0001 - Stormwater Drainage Plan - Lower Ground Floor • C-03-0002 - Stormwater Drainage Plan - Upper Ground Floor • C-03-0003 - Stormwater Drainage Plan - Level One	12 August 2025
4	11 Plan of Subdivision DP24923 (Issue 3) prepared by Mitchell Keith Ayres • Sheet No.1 of 6 (Location Plan)  • Sheet No.2 of 6 (Basement)  • Sheet No.3 of 6 (Lower Ground)  • Sheet No.4 of 6 (Ground) • Sheet No.5 of 6 (Level 1) • Sheet No.6 of 6 (Level 2)	14 August 2025
5	12 Clause 4.6 – Height of Buildings, prepared by BBF Town Planners	12 August 2025
6	13 Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio, prepared by BBF Town Planners	12 August 2025
7	14 BASIX Certificate 1770919M_02 prepared by AGA Consultants Pty Ltd	19 August 2024
8	15 NatHERS Certificate No. #HR-QRBNE1-02	19 August 2024
9	16 NatHERS Thermal Performance Specifications (BASIX Thermal Comfort) Certificate No.#HR-QRBNE1-02	19 August 2024
10	17 Visual & View Impact Assessment (Issue F)	11 August 2025
11	18 Aboriginal Due Diligence Report prepared by Everick Heritage	4 September 2025
12	19 Design Verification Statement prepared by Platform Architects	18 August 2025
13	20 Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Weir Phillips	July 2025
14	21 Heritage Assessment prepared by Weir Phillips	July 2025
15	22 Photographic Archival Recording prepared by Weir Phillips	September 2024

Orders

9. The Court orders that:

1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend development application DA/2024/1562 in accordance with plans and documents listed at [8] of the judgment.

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

3. the appeal is upheld.

4. Development Application DA/2024/1562 for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a residential flat building comprising 5 residential apartment and carparking for 11 vehicles, Strata Subdivision, landscaping and associated infrastructure at 5 Lauderdale Avenue, Fairlight (Lot A DP 24923) is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

D Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (359 KB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 30 September 2025