Mandalup Investments Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1227

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Mandalup Investments Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1227

Hearing dates:

Conciliation conference on 4 November 2025

Date of orders:

11 November 2025

Decision date:

11 November 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Washington C

Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application DA0606/24 for the construction of an animal boarding and training establishment at 100 Old Kurrajong Road, Richmond, being Lot 1 and 2 in DP 206104 is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – animal boarding and training establishment – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.16 8.7

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

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 38

Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.3, 6.1, 6.4

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6

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

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Mandalup Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
A Gough (Solicitor) (Applicant)
J Corradini-Bird (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/313720

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: These Class 1 proceedings arise as a result of the actual refusal, by Hawkesbury City Council, of Development Application DA0606/24 which seeks consent for the construction of an animal boarding and training establishment at 100 Old Kurrajong Road, Richmond 2753, Lots 1 and 2 DP 206104.

2. These proceedings have been brought to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).

3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 4 November 2025.

4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to acceptable terms of a decision in the proceedings. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

5. As part of this agreement, pursuant to s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation), the Council agreed to the applicant amending the development application to adequately address their contentions.

6. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if that decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, which the parties identified and explained. From this I note the following points.

Jurisdictional matters

7. The development application was made with the written consent of the owner of the land.

8. The application was adequately notified from 20 January to 3 February 2025. No submissions were received in this time.

9. Section 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP R&H) requires the consent authority to consider whether the site is contaminated, and if so, whether it will be suitable for the intended use. Based on the parties’ submissions and the information contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Minto Planning Services dated 12 December 2024 (SEE), I note that there is no change of use proposed. I further note that there is no evidence of potentially contaminating activities nor any likely contamination, and I accept that the land is suitable for the proposed development.

10. A small portion of the south-east of the site is mapped as ‘proximity area for coastal wetlands’ pursuant to s 2.8 of the SEPP R&H. From the parties’ submission and the letter by Minto Planning Services dated 29 October 2025, I accept that the development is not within the mapped proximity area, and that the proposed development will not significantly impact on any of the matters listed in s 2.8(1).

11. A portion of the site is also mapped as ‘coastal environment area’ pursuant to s 2.10 of the SEPP R&H. The SEE demonstrates consideration of the matters listed in s 2.10(1), and from which I accept that the proposed development meets the requirements of s 2.10(2). A further portion is mapped as ‘coastal use area’ and again, on the basis of the SEE and the parties’ submission I accept that the matters listed in s 2.11(1)(a) have been considered, and that the proposed development meets the requirements of s 2.11(1)(b) and (c).

12. The site is located within the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment, which is a regulated catchment pursuant to Ch 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP B&C). From the parties’ submission, the agreed conditions of consent and the SEE, I accept that the requirements of Ch 6 of SEPP B&C relating to water quality and quantity (s 6.6), aquatic ecology (s 6.7), and flooding (s 6.8) are met by the proposed development. I further accept that the proposed development does not affect public access to and from natural waterbodies (s 6.9), is not likely to have any adverse environmental impact on any adjacent local government areas (s 6.10), is not a water-dependant use, and will not cause a conflict with other land uses (s 6.11). Finally, for the same reasons I accept that the impact of the development on the scenic quality of the Riverine Scenic Area will be minimised.

13. The subject site is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape under the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP), within which development for the purposes of animal boarding or training establishments is permissible with consent. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this zone.

14. Pursuant to HLEP cl 4.3, a maximum building height of 10m applies to the subject site. The proposed development complies with this development standard.

15. The site is mapped within the flood planning area. From the Flood Emergency Response Plan and the Flood Report, both by GRC Hydro dated October 2025, and from the parties’ submissions, I accept that the impact of the structure and associated earthworks on flood behaviour is minimal. I further accept that, when considered against the flood-related matters listed in HLEP cl 5.21(3), the development meets the requirements of cl 5.21(2).

16. Pursuant to HLEP cl 6.1, the site is identified as Class 1, 4 and 5 on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map. The works are located on the area mapped as Class 5, however from the parties’ submission and the amended architectural drawings by David Jones Building and Landscape Design, I accept that excavation is minimal, and that the proposed works are not likely to lower the water table below 1 metre Australian Height Datum.

17. The site is partially mapped as containing biodiversity on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map pursuant to HLEP cl 6.4. From the parties’ submissions and the assessment within the SEE, I accept that the matters listed in HLEP cl 6.4 (3) have been considered, and the development meets the requirements for terrestrial biodiversity in cl 6.4(4).

18. From the parties’ submission and the SEE, I accept that all services that are essential for the development are available, or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required.

Conclusion

19. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and accordingly I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

20. The Court notes:

1. Hawkesbury City Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed, under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the Applicant amending Development Application No DA0606/24 in accordance with the documents listed below:

Plan name	Drawing Number	Prepared by	Dated
Amended Architectural Plans
Site Plan, Site Analysis Plan	562/1B	David Jones Building & Landscape Design	11 October 2025
Part Site Plan	562/2E	David Jones Building & Landscape Design	11 October 2025
Stables – Perspective View	562/12	David Jones Building & Landscape Design	July 2024
Stables – Perspective View	562/13	David Jones Building & Landscape Design	July 2024

Supporting Documentation
Flood Emergency Response Plan	GRC Hydro	October 2025
Flood Report	GRC Hydro	October 2025
Town planning opinion	Minto Planning Services	29 October 2025

21. The Court orders:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application DA0606/24 for the construction of an animal boarding and training establishment at 100 Old Kurrajong Road, Richmond, being Lot 1 and 2 in DP 206104 is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

E Washington

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Annexure A (251 KB, pdf)

Decision last updated: 11 November 2025