Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1665

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1665

Hearing dates:

Conciliation on 27 August 2025

Date of orders:

12 September 2025

Decision date:

12 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Gray C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) as agreed or assessed.

(2) The appeal is upheld.

(3) Development Application No. 24/0416 is determined by grant of consent for bulk earthworks, civil works and subdivision over Stage 5 of the Central Precinct at Lot 2 to 6 in DP 1248480 (excluding Lots 1 and 2 shown in Plan of Acquisition DP 1311869) Wianamatta Parkway, Jordan Springs NSW 2474, subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A.

Catchwords:

APPEAL - development application – civil works and subdivision – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7

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

Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW), s 100B

Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), s 90

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 27, 37, 38, Sch 3

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13

State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts—Western Parkland City) 2021, Ch 6, ss 6.2, 6.5, 6.7, 6.20, 6.44, 6.45, 6.46, 6.48, 6.51, 6.52, 6.53, 6.54, 6.55, 6.57, 6.58, 6.61, 6.67, 6.68, 6.69

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

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

Cases Cited:

Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1417

Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1418

McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183

Texts Cited:

St Marys Central Precinct Plan, 2016

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Penrith City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
A Hemmings (Applicant)
J Wauchope (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Addisons (Applicant)
Dentons (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/312608

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application for bulk earthworks, civil works and subdivision over Stage 5 of the Central Precinct, St Marys Development Site at Lot 2 to 6 in Deposited Plan 1248480 (excluding Lots 1 and 2 shown in in Plan of Acquisition DP1311869) on Wianamatta Parkway at Jordan Springs (the Site). The development application was lodged with the respondent on 6 June 2024. Following the expiry of the period after which a development application is deemed to be refused, the applicant lodged an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [33] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.

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 27 August 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. Although an agreement was filed by the parties on 25 August 2025, the final agreement was filed on 9 September 2025. The agreement follows the Council’s approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The amendment is to include a WSP Report on Geotechnical Considerations. Earlier amendments to the development application were made prior to the arranging of the conciliation conference.

4. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. Annexure B to the signed agreement is the Parties’ Joint Jurisdictional Statement, which sets out the jurisdictional matters about which the consent authority must be satisfied (Jurisdictional Statement). I have considered the contents of the Jurisdictional Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in Condition 1. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act. To understand some of the matters addressed in my consideration of the jurisdictional requirements below, it is necessary to understand the development consents that already relate to the Site.

Existing development consents

5. The Site falls within the Central Precinct of the St Marys Development Site, which is one of six precincts within the St Marys Development Site. The Central Precinct benefits from a number of development consents, and is being developed in stages. The proposed development relates to Stage 5. The development consents most relevant to the proposed development are:

• DA14/1228 for vegetation removal and bulk earthworks across the entire Central Precinct (including the Site), and

• DA17/0920 for a Stage 5A subdivision for land within the Site, to create 114 residential lots and one lot for drainage, and public roads.

6. Extensive works have been carried out pursuant to DA14/1228, including the filling of the Site. In addition, infrastructure and services have been constructed on the Site pursuant to DA17/0920. However, issues have arisen concerning the filling of the Site. As such, the applicant seeks to demolish the infrastructure and services, excavate the fill, process the excavated material, and re-fill the Site.

7. On 23 July 2024, both DA23/0375 (being Stage 3 works) and DA23/0551 (being Stage 6 works) were granted development consent by the Court (in Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1417 and Maryland Development Company Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1418). Both applications involved excavation, reinstatement and validation of fill material to re-do works pursuant to DA14/1228 on land outside of the Site but within the Central Precinct.

The proposed development

8. The development application, as amended, seeks changes to the Torrens title subdivision approved by DA17/0920 and includes:

• Demolition of existing infrastructure and services constructed under DA17/0920;

• Earthworks involving the excavation of fill placed on the Site under DA14/1228, stockpiling and processing of excavated fill, then using that material to fill the Site, importing and placing additional fill as needed when there is insufficient stockpiled fill, and offsite disposal of unsuitable excavated materials. The processed and imported fill will be compacted on Site to result in final land levels;

• Construction of roads and associated civil infrastructure, including the delivery of the north/south road linking Wianamatta Parkway to Stage 6; and

• Subdivision of the Site into 49 Torrens title residential lots, one residue lot for a riparian corridor, one residue lot for a detention basin, and one residue lot for future residential subdivision.

There is power to make orders in accordance with the agreement

9. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent is a decision 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. This test is concerned with there being no jurisdictional constraints that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the decision that the parties’ have agreed upon (see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the reasons that follow.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021

10. Chapter 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts – Western Parkland City) 2021 (SEPP WPC) is the principal planning instrument that applies to the Site.

11. Pursuant to Pt 6.3 and s 6.20(2)(a) of the SEPP WPC, a precinct plan is in place and known as the St Marys Central Precinct Plan (CPP), adopted in March 2016 and most recently amended on 7 September 2018. The CPP includes a Development Control Strategy (DCS).

12. The Site is zoned part Regional Open Space, Regional Park, Drainage and Urban under the SEPP WPC. The area to be developed is zoned Urban under the SEPP WPC, with some battering works occurring in land zoned Regional Open Space. Other parts of Lot 6 which are not the subject of the development application are zoned Regional Park and Drainage. The subdivision of land is permissible with consent, pursuant to s 6.45 of the SEPP WPC, and the demolition of a building is permissible with consent pursuant to s 6.48.

13. Section 6.20(1)(a) of the SEPP WPC precludes the grant of development consent unless the Court, in exercising the functions of the consent authority, is satisfied that “the proposed development will not be inconsistent with achievement of the performance objectives, and the zone objectives and other requirements prescribed by this Chapter”. I am satisfied that:

• The proposed development will not be inconsistent with the zone objectives for the Regional Open Space zone and the Urban zone, for the reasons that are set out in the Jurisdictional Statement and the Addendum Statement of Environmental Effects dated 21 May 2025 (Addendum SEE);

• Having regard to the performance objectives in ss 6.21-6.35, the proposed development will not be inconsistent with achievement of these objectives, based on the information set out in the Jurisdictional Statement and the Addendum SEE; and

• The proposed development will not be inconsistent with the other requirements of Ch 6, for the reasons set out below in [14] to [26].

14. Section 6.20(1)(b) of the SEPP WPC precludes the grant of development consent unless the Court, in exercising the functions of the consent authority, has considered the DCS. I have reviewed the DCS, so far as it relates to the proposed development, and have considered them based on the Statement of Environmental Effects dated May 2024.

15. Section 6.20(2)(a) of the SEPP WPC precludes the grant of development consent unless there is a precinct plan in place and the Court, exercising the functions of the consent authority, has taken that precinct plan into account. I have reviewed the CPP and, based on the Addendum SEE and the Jurisdictional Statement, have taken into account the relevant matters in the CPP.

16. Section 6.20(2)(b) of the SEPP WPC precludes the grant of development consent unless the Court, exercising the functions of the consent authority, has taken into account whether the proposed development is consistent with the terms of any relevant development agreement. There are two development agreements that are relevant, the St Marys State Development Agreement dated 7 May 2023 (as amended on 23 June 2023), and the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement dated 20 December 2018. In relation to each agreement:

• The Proposed Development is consistent with the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement in that it will facilitate the future delivery of open space. Conditions 80 and 81 refer to works required under the St Marys Penrith Planning Agreement.

• The Proposed Development is consistent with the St Marys State Development Agreement in that it does not compromise the delivery of any obligations.

17. As required by s 6.44 of the SEPP WSP, the development application has been referred to the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, and their advice has been received.

18. Section 6.46 of the SEPP WSP concerns the subdivision of land for residential purposes. Based on the Addendum SEE I am satisfied of the matters in s 6.46(a) and (b).

19. Based on the Addendum SEE, I am satisfied that the proposed development does not offend s 6.51 of the SEPP WSP, as the site is currently filled as a result of the earthworks carried out pursuant to DA14/1228 to a level above the flood planning level. The proposed development does not propose any change to the levels, which were approved under DA14/1228 and DA17/0920, which complied with the applicable Flood Risk Management Manual of that time. For the same reasons, the land will remain above the 1% AEP flood level following the carrying out of the development, and the requirements of s 6.50(4) and (5) are met.

20. Based on the Site Status Letter prepared by JBS&G and the Geotechnical Investigation Report dated 28 April 2023, I have considered the matters in s 6.52(1) of the SEPP WSP and, given the proposed development includes the excavation, verification and reinstatement of this material, I am satisfied that appropriate measures are incorporated to mitigate any potential impacts.

21. The proposed development does not seek tree removal and is not in the vicinity of an item of environmental heritage, such that ss 6.53, 6.54 and 6.55 of the SEPP WSP need no consideration.

22. Based on the Addendum SEE, the Jurisdictional Statement, the GML Heritage letter dated 8 May 2024, and the GML Heritage Assessment letter dated 5 September 2025, I have considered how the proposed development affects the conservation of aboriginal relics. Based on the findings in the letter dated 5 September 2025, I consider that the development will not likely have an impact on an Aboriginal place and will not be carried out on a potential archaeological site, such that the matters in s 6.57(1) are not applicable and s 6.57 of the SEPP WSP does not apply.

23. The proposed development uses the existing road network for access, and does not enable vehicular access to The Northern Road, Palmyra Avenue, Forrester Road or Ninth Avenue, and therefore does not offend s 6.58 of the SEPP WSP.

24. As required by ss 6.61 and 6.67 of the SEPP WSP, the Site already has services available to it in the form of water supply, sewage, drainage and electricity, although these are to be demolished and reinstated through the carrying out of the proposed works.

25. Based on the Jurisdictional Statement, the Addendum SEE and the scope of the development consent, which does not alter the approved evacuation and emergency route, and the agreed condition 84, I am satisfied of the matters in s 6.68(2) of the SEPP WSP.

26. Section 6.69 of the SEPP WSP does not apply as the works to be carried out are not being carried out on the land shown as ‘Subsidence Risk Area’ on the zoning map.

Remaining jurisdictional matters

27. In addition, the following jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties are satisfied:

• The proposed development could affect an electricity transmission line or distribution network, as a result of which s 2.48 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 requires notification to the electricity supply authority and consideration of their response. Consistent with those requirements, TransGrid was notified of the development application and, on 12 July 2024, provided conditions of consent that it requested be imposed if the consent was granted. Those conditions are in condition 56.

• The site falls within the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment, within the South Creek Sub-catchment, such that Ch 2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) applies to the development application. Based on the nature of the works proposed and the contents of the Jurisdictional Statement, the erosion and sediment control plans, the stormwater details, and the civil engineering report dated 12 May 2025, I am satisfied of the matters in ss 6.6(2), 6.7(2) and 6.8(2). Further, the development will not change any public access to recreational areas or waterbodies, and I am therefore satisfied of the matters in s 6.9(2).

• Consideration has been given as to whether the subject site is contaminated as required by s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021. The Central Precinct has been subject to extensive investigation, and, where necessary, remediation through the 1990s. Based on the Site Status Letter dated 15 May 2025 by JBS&G, there is not expected to be contaminated material on the site. In addition, the proposed development includes a Material Tracking Procedure dated 13 March 2024 and a Material Management and Strategy letter dated 14 May 2025, which will ensure that all material excavated and reinstated on the Site is reviewed and tracked, ensuring that it remains suitable for residential development.

• The development application was notified between 24 June 2024 and 23 July 2024, and again following amendment from 16 to 30 July 2025. A total of three written submissions were received over the two notification periods. I have considered the issues raised in those submissions (and I note that those issues do not relate to the proposed development).

Integrated development

28. The proposal is integrated development pursuant to s 90 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). The Department of Planning and Environment, Water, has provided general terms of approval dated 26 September 2024, and those terms of approval are incorporated into the conditions, at condition 56.

29. The proposal is integrated development pursuant to s 100B(3) of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW), and the NSW Rural Fire Service has issued a Section 100B Bush Fire Safety Authority dated 29 July 2025. The general terms of approval issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service are required to be complied with, pursuant to condition 5.

The final outcome

30. Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could have made 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)).

31. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any evaluative judgment on the matters that were originally in dispute between the parties, or 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.

32. The Court notes that:

1. Penrith City Council, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed under section 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2021 (NSW) to the Applicant amending Development Application No. 24/0416 to include the following plans and documents:

Document	Date
WSP Report – Jordan Springs East Stage 5 – Geotechnical Considerations for Uncontrolled Fill under Pavements and Infrastructure (PS129457-WSP-SYD-GEO-LTR-0057 Rev0)	31 July 2025

2. The following documents have not been superseded and continue to be relied upon as part of Development Application no. 24/0416:

Tab

Document

Date

1.

Addendum Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GLN

21 May 2025

2.

Owners Consent

4 November 2024

3.

Subdivision Plan of lots 4 & 5 in DP 1248480 and lots 3 & 4 in DP 1311869 prepared by RPS

15 May 2025

4.

Building Envelope Plan Rev 10 prepared by Enspire

9 May 2025

5.

Civil Engineering Plans prepared by Enspire

Plan No.	Plan name	Rev	Date
210054-52-DA-C01.01	COVER SHEET AND DRAWING SCHEDULE	7	02/04/25
210054-52-DA-C01.21	SPECIFICATION NOTES - SHEET 0	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C01.22	SPECIFICATION NOTES - SHEET 02	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C01.31	CONTEXT-STAGING PLAN	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C01.41	GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C01.51	ROAD HIERARCHY PLAN	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C01.61	HAUL ROAD AND STOCKPILE LOCATION	5	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C02.01	DEMOLITION PLAN - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C02.02	DEMOLITION PLAN - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C02.03	DEMOLITION PLAN - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C02.21	DEMOLITION PAVEMENT PLAN - SHEET 01	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C02.22	DEMOLITION PAVEMENT PLAN - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C03.01	EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PLAN - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C03.02	EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PLAN - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C03.03	EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PLAN - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C03.21	210054-52-DA-C03.21	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.01	CUT AND FILL PHASE 1 - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.02	CUT AND FILL PHASE 1 - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.03	CUT AND FILL PHASE 1 - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.11	CUT AND FILL PHASE 2 - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.12	CUT AND FILL PHASE 2 - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.13	CUT AND FILL PHASE 2 - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.21	BULK EARTHWORKS - PHASE 1 - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.22	BULK EARTHWORKS - PHASE 1 - SHEET 02	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.23	BULK EARTHWORKS - PHASE 1 - SHEET 03	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.41	BULK EARTHWORKS - CUT FILL SECTIONS - SHEET 01	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.42	BULK EARTHWORKS - CUT FILL SECTIONS - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C04.43	BULK EARTHWORKS - CUT FILL SECTIONS - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C05.01	SITEWORKS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C05.02	SITEWORKS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - SHEET 02	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C05.03	SITEWORKS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - SHEET 03	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C05.51	ROAD 26A OPTION 02	1	13/05/25
210054-52-DA-C06.01	ROAD TYPICAL SECTIONS	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C07.01	ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C07.02	ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 02	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C07.03	ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 03	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C07.04	ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 04	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C07.05	ROAD LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS - SHEET 05	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C11.01	PAVEMENT, SIGNAGE AND LINEMARKING PLAN - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C11.02	PAVEMENT, SIGNAGE AND LINEMARKING PLAN - SHEET 02	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C11.03	PAVEMENT, SIGNAGE AND LINEMARKING PLAN - SHEET 03	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C14.01	SITEWORKS DETAILS - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C14.02	SITEWORKS DETAILS - SHEET 02	3	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C18.01	STORMWATER DETAILS	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C20.01	STORMWATER CATCHMENT PLAN	8	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C22.01	TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 01	7	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C22.02	TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 02	4	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C22.03	TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 03	4	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C22.04	TURNING PATH PLAN - SHEET 04	4	09/05/25
210054-52-DA-C23.01	SAFETY IN DESIGN	7	09/05/25
SK0207	Stage 5 – Road 26A Blister	A	13/05/25

6.

Civil Engineering Report prepared by Enspire

12 May 2025

7.

Landscape Plans prepared by Sturt Noble Associates

Plan No.	Plan name	Rev	Date
DA-2208-001	Cover Sheet	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-202	Landscape Plan 02	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-203	Landscape Plan 03	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-204	Landscape Plan 04	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-205	Landscape Plan 05	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-206	Landscape Plan 06	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-207	Landscape Plan 07	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-208	Landscape Plan 08	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-209	Landscape Plan 09	D	16/05/25
DA-2208-801	Landscape Section 01	A	16/05/25

8.

Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by WSP

20 May 2025

9.

Jordan Springs East Stage 5 - Geotechnical Considerations for Excavation of Uncontrolled Fill adjacent Stages/Lots prepared by WSP

21 May 2025

10.

Not used

11.

Waste Management Plan

20 May 2025

12.

Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by Building Code and Bushfire Hazard Solutions Pty Ltd

14 May 2025

13.

Material Tracking Procedure prepared by JBS&G

13 March 2024

14.

Material Management and Strategy Letter by JBS&G

14 May 2025

15.

Site Status Letter prepared by JBS&G

15 May 2025

16.

Interim Advice 12: Endorsement of Site Status Letters and Material Management and Strategy Letter – Stage 5 Jordan Springs East (Central Precinct) Development site prepared by Geosyntec Consultants

21 May 2025

17.

EDC Cost Report prepared by Mitchell Brandtman

21 May 2025

Class 1 Application Documents (Not superseded)

18.

Development Application Form

6 June 2024

19.

Statement of Environmental Effects

31 May 2024

20.

Air Quality Impact Assessment prepared by Todoroski Air Sciences

9 November 2023

21.

Bulk Earthworks, Construction, Noise and Vibration Impact Statement by Renzo Tonin & Associates

17 November 2023

22.

Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by WSP

28 April 2023

23.

AHIP Review prepared by GML Heritage

8 May 2024

24.

Geotechnical Site-wide Earthworks Specification prepared by WSP

May 2024

25.

Earthworks Construction Methodology Report prepared by WSP Golder

May 2024

Schedule of Amendments

26.

Schedule of Amendments

Orders

33. The Court orders that:

1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) as agreed or assessed.

2. The appeal is upheld.

3. Development Application No. 24/0416 is determined by the grant of consent for bulk earthworks, civil works and subdivision over Stage 5 of the Central Precinct at Lot 2 to 6 in DP 1248480 (excluding Lots 1 and 2 shown in Plan of Acquisition DP 1311869) Wianamatta Parkway, Jordan Springs NSW 2474, subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A.

J Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (3.79 MB, pdf)

**********

Decision last updated: 12 September 2025