Lloyds Building & Development Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1039

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Lloyds Building & Development Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1039

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference 6 November 2024

Date of orders:

24 January 2025

Decision date:

24 January 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Targett C

Decision:

Proceedings 2024/177708

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application DA/286/2024 (as amended) for the demolition of existing structures on the site, subdivision, construction of three (3) townhouses and associated works at 216 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260, is determined by the grant of consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure A.

(3) Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments to the development application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders.

Proceedings 2024/177709

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application DA/13/2024 (as amended) for the demolition of existing structures on the site, subdivision, construction of three (3) townhouses and associated works at 218 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260, is determined by the grant of consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure B.

(3) Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments to the development application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Development application - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.10, 8.11, 8.15

Roads Act 1993, s 138

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, cll 5.21, 7.1

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, ss 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.6

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

Texts Cited:

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Lloyds Building & Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Frangi (Solicitor) (Applicant)
M Ball (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Fortis Law (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/177708
2024/177709

Publication restriction:

No

Judgment

COMMISSIONER:

1. This judgment deals with the following two appeals:

1. Proceedings 2024/177708 (216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings) – an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the respondent’s deemed refusal of the applicant’s development application (DA/286/2024) (216 Terrigal Drive DA) seeking consent for a multi dwelling housing development on Lot 20 in Deposited Plan 12020, known as 216 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal (216 Terrigal Drive).

2. Proceedings 2024/177709 (218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings) – an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the EPA Act against the respondent’s deemed refusal of the applicant’s development application (DA/13/2024) (218 Terrigal Drive DA) seeking consent for a multi dwelling housing development on Lot 19 in Deposited Plan 12020, known as 218 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal (218 Terrigal Drive).

2. The Court has power to dispose of these proceedings under its Class 1 jurisdiction pursuant to s 17(d) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).

Background

3. The 218 Terrigal Drive DA was lodged with the respondent on 10 January 2024.

4. The 218 Terrigal Drive DA proposed the following:

1. demolition of all existing structures;

2. construction of a two-storey multi-unit development consisting of three, three bedroom dwellings, each including garage, living/dining areas and adjoining private open space located on the ground floor, with bedrooms and bathrooms located on the first floor;

3. swimming pools for each dwelling and site landscaping works;

4. associated driveway, stormwater and fencing; and

5. strata subdivision.

5. The 218 Terrigal Drive DA was publicly notified between 19 January and 5 February 2024. No submissions were received by the respondent objecting to the proposal.

6. The 216 Terrigal Drive DA was lodged with the respondent on 14 March 2024.

7. The 216 Terrigal Drive DA sought consent for the same development on 216 Terrigal Drive as set out at [4] in respect of the 218 Terrigal Drive DA.

8. The 216 Terrigal Drive DA was publicly notified between 5 – 29 April 2024. The respondent received one written submission objecting to the proposal.

9. On 14 May 2024, the 216 Terrigal Drive DA Proceedings and 218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings were commenced, being within the appeal period prescribed by ss 8.10 and 8.11 of the EPA Act

10. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the LEC Act between the parties in both proceedings on 6 November 2024, which was adjourned on multiple occasions. I presided over the conciliation conference.

11. Amended plans and additional documents were provided to the Court in respect of the 216 Terrigal Drive DA and 218 Terrigal Drive DA on 11 December 2024 as part of the conciliation conference process (Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA, and Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA, respectively). The amendments can be summarised in both proceedings as follows:

1. updated architectural, civil and other plans depicting, amongst other things, amended setbacks, increased landscaped area, amendments to retaining walls, deletion of the car stacker, and relocation of the visitor space; and

2. updated BASIX and NatHERS Certificates.

12. The agreement reached in the 218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings is for the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA to be granted, subject to conditions. The signed agreement in the Terrigal Drive Proceedings is supported by a jurisdictional statement.

13. The agreement reached in the 216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings is for the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA to be granted, subject to conditions. The signed agreement in the 216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings is supported by a jurisdictional statement.

14. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make 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 for the reasons that follow.

216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings

Owner’s consent

15. The 216 Terrigal Drive DA was lodged by the applicant with the written consent of the registered proprietor of 216 Terrigal Drive (see tab 9 of the 216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings Class 1 Application).

Roads Act 1993

16. The proposed development was referred to Transport for NSW for comment or concurrence pursuant to s 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Condition 2.5 of the Agreed Conditions requires the applicant to obtain a Roads Act Works Approval pursuant to s 138 of the Roads Act 1993 prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

17. Chapter 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP) applies to 216 Terrigal Drive as it is located within the “coastal zone” pursuant to ss 2.3 and 2.4 of the RH SEPP, and “proximity area for coastal wetlands”, “coastal environment area” and “coastal use area” more specifically for the purposes of ss 2.8, 2.10 and 2.11 of the RH SEPP, respectively.

18. Pursuant to s 2.8 of the RH SEPP, development consent must not be granted to development on land relevantly identified as a “proximity area for coastal wetlands” unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on the matters listed in s 2.8(1). The parties agree that the proposed development is on an existing established residential site and is not likely to impact the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, nor the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest. Further, various conditions of consent have been included in respect of both construction and occupation of 216 Terrigal Drive to ensure that any adverse impacts are appropriately mitigated. This is consistent with the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Corona Projects dated February 2023 (Statement Environmental Effects (SEE)) (see p 12).

19. The parties therefore submit, and I accept, that the development proposed in the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA will not significantly impact on the matters listed in s 2.8(1) of the RH SEPP.

20. Pursuant to s 2.10 of the RH SEPP, development must not be granted to development on land within the “coastal environment area” unless the consent authority has considered the matters in s 2.10(1) and is satisfied of the matters in s 2.10(2). The parties agree that the works proposed by the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA are located on an established residential site which is significantly separated from the waterway and does not involve the significant alteration of any native vegetation or ground coverings. It is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on the existing biophysical, hydrological or ecological environment or natural coastal processes. The proposed development does not involve works to the waterway or banks, and is not expected to detrimentally impact marine vegetation, native vegetation, flora or fauna. The proposed development will also not impede access to existing open space or the surf zone. This is consistent with pp 12-13 of the SEE.

21. In determining the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 2.10(1) of the RH SEPP and am satisfied of the matters in s 2.10(2).

22. Pursuant to s 2.11 of the RH SEPP, development must not be granted to development on land within the “coastal use area” unless the consent authority has considered the matters in s 2.11(1)(a) and is satisfied of the matters in s 2.11(1)(b). The parties agree that the proposed development will not impact access to coastal areas. Further, it is not likely to impact overshadowing, views, visual amenity or the scenic qualities of the coastline. 216 Terrigal Drive is not registered as having any natural or built heritage features. This is consistent with pp 13-14 of the SEE.

23. In determining the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 2.11(1)(a) of the RH SEPP and am satisfied of the matters in s 2.11(1)(b).

24. Section 2.12 of the RH SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land. The parties agree, and I accept, that the proposed development is not likely to cause an increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land for the reasons set out at [18, 20 and 22].

25. Section 2.13 of the RH SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of any certified coastal management program that applies to the land. The parties agree, and I accept, that any certified coastal management programs applicable to 216 Terrigal Drive have been considered within the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA.

26. In respect of s 4.6 of the RH SEPP, I accept the parties’ submission that 216 Terrigal Drive is suitable for the proposed use on the basis that 216 Terrigal Drive has a long standing residential use, no known history of contaminating uses, and various conditions of consent have been included to address any risks associated with the identification of any contamination on the site.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

27. Section 2.119 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (TISEPP) applies to the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA as the proposed development is located with frontage to a classified road (Terrigal Drive). Pursuant to s 2.119(2) of the TISEPP, development consent must not be granted to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters in s 2.119(2).

28. Having regard to p 15 of the SEE, I am satisfied that of the matters in s 2.119(2) including that:

1. 216 Terrigal Drive only has one access point to a public road, being Terrigal Drive;

2. the proposal is of a minor nature and is not likely to impact the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of Terrigal Drive;

3. the proposed dwellings are capable of being appropriately located and designed to reduce potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions with the site of the development arising from Terrigal Drive.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022

29. 216 Terrigal Drive is zoned R1 General Residential under the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 (LEP). The proposed development is permissible with consent in the R1 zone.

30. I have had regard to the zoning objectives of the R1 zone which are extracted below:

•  To provide for the housing needs of the community.

•  To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

•  To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

•  To promote best practice in the design of multi dwelling housing and other similar types of development.

•  To ensure that non-residential uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place unreasonable demands on services.

31. The parties agree that the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA complies with the relevant height and floor space ratio (FSR) standards in the LEP.

32. 216 Terrigal Drive is identified within a “flood planning area” for the purposes of cl 5.21 of the LEP. In determining the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA, I am satisfied of the matters in cl 5.21(2) and have considered the matters in cl 5.21(3) of the LEP, having regard to the Flood Risk Management Report prepared by KD Stormwater date January 2024.

33. 216 Terrigal Drive is identified as being affected by Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soils for the purposes of cl 7.1 of the LEP. The parties agree that the proposed development will not involve works lower than 5 metres and are unlikely to lower the water table below one metre and therefore comply with cl 7.1 of the LEP.

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

34. The parties agree that the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA complies with relevant provisions of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 (DCP) as per pp 18-31 of the SEE.

Remaining matters in s 4.15(1) of EPA Act

35. In determining the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA and noting the above, I have taken into consideration the matters listed in s 4.15(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the EPA Act as are of relevance to the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA.

36. For the purposes of s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act, the 216 Terrigal Drive DA was notified between 5 and 29 April 2024 and received one submission objecting to the proposal, primarily relating to overlooking concerns and non-compliant rear setbacks. I confirm that the submission has been considered in the determination of the Amended 216 Terrigal Drive DA.

218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings

Owner’s consent

37. The 218 Terrigal Drive DA was lodged by the applicant with the written consent of the registered proprietors of 218 Terrigal Drive (see tab 10 of the 218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings Class 1 Application).

Roads Act 1993

38. The proposed development was referred to Transport for NSW for comment or concurrence pursuant to s 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Condition 2.6 of the Agreed Conditions requires the applicant to obtain a Roads Act Works Approval pursuant to s 138 of the Roads Act 1993 prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

39. Chapter 2 of the RH SEPP applies to 218 Terrigal Drive as it is located within the “coastal zone” pursuant to ss 2.3 and 2.4 of the RH SEPP, and “proximity area for coastal wetlands”, “coastal environment area” and “coastal use area” more specifically for the purposes of ss 2.8, 2.10 and 2.11 of the RH SEPP, respectively.

40. Pursuant to s 2.8 of the RH SEPP, development consent must not be granted to development on land relevantly identified as a “proximity area for coastal wetlands” unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on the matters listed in s 2.8(1). The parties agree that the proposed development is on an existing established residential site and is not likely to impact the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, nor the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest. Further, various conditions of consent have been included in respect of both construction and occupation of 218 Terrigal Drive to ensure that any adverse impacts are appropriately mitigated. This is consistent with the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Corona Projects dated November 2023 (218 Terrigal Drive SEE) (see p 12).

41. The parties therefore submit, and I accept, that the development proposed in the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA will not significantly impact on the matters listed in s 2.8(1) of the RH SEPP.

42. Pursuant to s 2.10 of the RH SEPP, development must not be granted to development on land within the “coastal environment area” unless the consent authority has considered the matters in s 2.10(1) and is satisfied of the matters in s 2.10(2). The parties agree that the works proposed by the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA are located on an established residential site which is significantly separated from the waterway and do not involve the significant alteration of any native vegetation or ground coverings. It is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on the existing biophysical, hydrological or ecological environment or natural coastal processes. The proposed development does not involve works to the waterway or banks, and is not expected to detrimentally impact marine vegetation, native vegetation, flora or fauna. The proposed development will also not impede access to existing open space or the surf zone. This is consistent with pp 13-14 of the 218 Terrigal Drive SEE.

43. In determining the Amended 218 Terrigal DA, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 2.10(1) of the RH SEPP and am satisfied of the matters in s 2.10(2).

44. Pursuant to s 2.11 of the RH SEPP, development must not be granted to development on land within the “coastal use area” unless the consent authority has considered the matters in s 2.11(1)(a) and is satisfied of the matters in s 2.11(1)(b). The parties agree that the proposed development will not impact access to coastal areas. Further, it is not likely to impact overshadowing, views, visual amenity or the scenic qualities of the coastline. 218 Terrigal Drive is not registered as having any natural or built heritage features. This is consistent with p 14 of the 218 Terrigal Drive SEE.

45. In determining the Amended 218 Terrigal DA, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in s 2.11(1)(a) of the RH SEPP and am satisfied of the matters in s 2.11(1)(b).

46. Section 2.12 of the RH SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land. The parties agree, and I accept, that the proposed development is not likely to cause an increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land for the reasons set out at [40, 42 and 44].

39. Section 2.13 of the RH SEPP provides that development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of any certified coastal management program that applies to the land. The parties agree, and I accept, that any certified coastal management programs applicable to 218 Terrigal Drive have been considered within the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA.

40. In respect of s 4.6 of the RH SEPP, I accept the parties’ submission that 218 Terrigal Drive is suitable for the proposed use on the basis that 218 Terrigal Drive has a long standing residential use, no known history of contaminating uses, and various conditions of consent have been included to address any risks associated with the identification of any contamination on the site.

41. State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021

42. Section 2.119 of TISEPP applies to the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA as the proposed development is located with frontage to a classified road (Terrigal Drive). Pursuant to s 2.119(2) of the TISEPP, development consent must not be granted to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied of the matters in s 2.119(2).

43. Having regard to p 16 of the 218 Terrigal Drive SEE, I am satisfied that of the matters in s 2.119(2) including that:

1. 218 Terrigal Drive only has one access point to a public road, being Terrigal Drive;

2. the proposal is of a minor nature and is not likely to impact the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of Terrigal Drive;

3. the proposed dwellings are capable of being appropriately located and designed to reduce potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions with the site of the development arising from Terrigal Drive.

Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022

52. 218 Terrigal Drive is zoned R1 General Residential under the LEP. The proposed development is permissible with consent in the R1 zone.

53. I have had regard to the zoning objectives of the R1 zone which are extracted above at [30].

54. The parties agree that the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA complies with the relevant height and FSR standards in the LEP.

55. 218 Terrigal Drive is identified within a “flood planning area” for the purposes of cl 5.21 of the LEP. In determining the Amended 2018 Terrigal Drive DA, I am satisfied of the matters in cl 5.21(2) and have considered the matters in cl 5.21(3) of the LEP, having regard to the Flood Risk Management Report prepared by KD Stormwater dated December 2023.

56. 218 Terrigal Drive is identified as being affected by Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soils for the purposes of cl 7.1 of the LEP. The parties agree that the proposed development will not involve works lower than 5 metres and are unlikely to lower the water table below one metre and therefore comply with cl 7.1 of the LEP.

Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022

57. The parties agree that the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA complies with relevant provisions of the DCP as per pp 19-32 of the 218 Terrigal Drive SEE.

Remaining matters in s 4.15(1) of EPA Act

58. In determining the 218 Terrigal Drive DA and noting the above, I have taken into consideration the matters listed in s 4.15(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the EPA Act as are of relevance to the Amended 218 Terrigal Drive DA.

59. For the purposes of s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act, the 218 Terrigal Drive DA was notified between 19 January and 5 February 2024 and received no submissions.

60. Conclusion

61. 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.

62. 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.

216 Terrigal Drive Proceedings

63. The Court notes that the respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved, under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), the amendment of Development Application DA/286/2024 to incorporate the documents listed below:

1.	Architectural
	Site Plan	1	Bentley Architects	D	Nov 2024
	Ground Floor Plan	2	Bentley Architects	D	Nov 2024
	First Floor Plan	3	Bentley Architects	D	Nov 2024
	Roof Plan	4	Bentley Architects	D	Nov 2024
	Elevations	5	Bentley Architects	C	Aug 2024
	Internal Sections (3D modelling views)	5A	Bentley Architects	C	Aug 2024
	Shadow Diagrams & Solar Access – Mid Winter	7	Bentley Architects	C	Aug 2024
	FSR Calc / Site Coverage Calc / Waste Management / Services Plan / Swept Paths Diagram	8	Bentley Architects	C	Aug 2024
	Finishes Schedule	-	Bentley Architects	-	-
	Height Plane Blanket Diagram	-	Bentley Architects	-	-
12.	Landscape Plans
	Landscape Plan	L/01	Bluegum Design	D	18 Nov 2024
	Landscape Details	L/02	Bluegum Design	D	18 Nov 2024
15.	Stormwater Plans
	Ground Floor and Site Drainage Plan	S1/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	Music Model	S2/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	First floor and Drainage Plan	S3/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	Water Quality Detail Plan	S4/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
16.	Sediment Control Plan	E1/1	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
17.	Water Cycle Management Report	-	TAA	-	-
18.	Survey Plan	-	Ace Surveyors	-	04 Jul 2024
19.	BASIX Certificate No. 173769M_02	-	Applicant	-	10 Dec 2024
20.	BASIX Project Commitments	-	Applicant	-	-
21.	NatHERS Certificates	-	Applicant	-	09 Dec 2024
22.	Stamped NatHERS Architectural Plans	-	Applicant	-	09 Dec 2024

64. The above documents were provided to the Court on 11 December 2024.

218 Terrigal Drive Proceedings

65. The Court notes that the respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved, under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), the amendment of Development Application DA/13/2024 to incorporate the documents listed below:

1.	Architectural
	Cover	00	Bentley Architects	-	Nov 2024
	Site Plan	1	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Ground Floor Plan	2	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	First Floor Plan	3	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Roof Plan	4	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Elevations	5	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Internal Sections (3D modelling views)	5A	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Site Analysis / Photo study	6	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Shadow Diagrams & Solar Access – Mid Winter	7	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	FSR Calc / Site Coverage Calc / Waste Management / Services Plan / Swept Paths Diagram	8	Bentley Architects	B	Sep 2024
	Survey Plan	-	Ace Surveyors	-	01 Jul 2024
	Finishes Schedule	-	Bentley Architects	-	-
	Height Plane Blanket Diagram	-	Bentley Architects	-	-
2.	Landscape Plans
	Landscape Plan	L/01	Bluegum Design	D	18 Nov 2024
	Landscape Details	L/02	Bluegum Design	D	18 Nov 2024
3.	Stormwater Plans
	Ground Floor and Site Drainage Plan	S1/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	Music Model	S2/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	First floor and Drainage Plan	S3/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
	Water Quality Detail Plan	S4/4	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
4.	Sediment Control Plan	E1/1	TAA	B	10 Nov 2024
5.	Water Cycle Management Report	-	TAA	-	-
6.	BASIX Certificate No. 1729584M_02	-	Applicant	-	10 Dec 2024
7.	BASIX Project Commitments	-	Applicant	-	-
8.	NatHERS Certificates	-	Applicant	-	09 Dec 2024
9.	Stamped NatHERS Architectural Plans	-	Applicant	-	09 Dec 2024

66. The above documents were also provided to the Court on 11 December 2024.

67. Orders

Proceedings 2024/177708

68. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application DA/286/2024 (as amended) for the demolition of existing structures on the site, subdivision, construction of three (3) townhouses and associated works at 216 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260, is determined by the grant of consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure A.

3. Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments to the development application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders.

Proceedings 2024/177709

69. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application DA/13/2024 (as amended) for the demolition of existing structures on the site, subdivision, construction of three (3) townhouses and associated works at 218 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260, is determined by the grant of consent subject to conditions contained in Annexure B.

3. Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments to the development application in the agreed amount of $2,000 within 28 days of these orders.

N Targett

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Annexure A

Annexure B

Decision last updated: 24 January 2025