Wey Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde

[2025] NSWLEC 1419

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Wey Group Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Ryde [2025] NSWLEC 1419

Hearing dates:

Conciliation Conference 6 June 2025

Date of orders:

13 June 2025

Decision date:

13 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Class 1

Before:

Targett C

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Development Application LDA2024/0258 for alterations and additions to a Complying Development Certificate approved dual occupancy development including two driveway crossings, widening of garage door, front fence and landscape works on Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 27701, also known as 2 Star Street, Eastwood, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords:

APPEAL — Development application — alterations and additions — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders

Legislation Cited:

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

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 17, 34, 34AA

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38

Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014, cll 6.2, 6.4

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

Texts Cited:

Ryde Development Control Plan 2014

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Wey Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
G Visentin (Solicitor) (Applicant)
L McDonald (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/15953

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

Background

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) by the applicant against the respondent’s refusal of the applicant’s development application (LDA2024/0258) (Development Application) for alterations and additions to a dual occupancy development approved by way of Complying Development Certificate (CDC) located on land identified as Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 27701, known as 2 Star Street, Eastwood (Subject Land).

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).

The Development Application

3. The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 29 November 2024 and sought consent for alterations and additions to the CDC approved dwelling including the:

1. construction of two driveway crossings to the street;

2. construction of a front fence and associated landscaping works in the front yard; and

3. widening of the garage door of unit 1 to accommodate a double garage.

4. On 18 December 2024, the Development Application was refused under delegated authority.

5. On 14 January 2025, the proceedings were commenced, being within the appeal period prescribed by s 8.10 of the EPA Act.

6. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2)(a) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 6 June 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

7. Amended plans were filed with the Court on 4 June 2025 (Amended Development Application) cited at [26]. The amendments can be summarised as follows:

1. the provision of additional landscaped area;

2. an amended stormwater pit design to provide increased capacity; and

3. an amended area for waste collection.

8. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of consent to the Amended Development Application, subject to conditions of consent. The signed agreement is supported by an agreed jurisdictional statement.

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

Jurisdictional considerations

10. 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.

Owner’s consent

11. The Development Application was lodged with the consent of the registered proprietors of the Subject Land (see Class 1 Application, tab 1).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021

12. I accept the parties’ submission that the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 have been considered and the Subject Land is suitable to accommodate the development the subject of the Amended Development Application. This is primarily because of the Subject Land’s longstanding history of residential use with no known history of potentially contaminating uses or events.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

13. The parties agree that the requirements of Ch 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (BC SEPP) apply to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment. Division 2 in Pt 6.2 sets out general controls applying to development in a regulated catchment.

14. The parties agree, and I accept, that:

1. For the purposes of s 6.6 of the BC SEPP, the Stormwater Plans prepared by HYDRACOR Consulting Engineers, Rev F, dated 6 May 2025 (Stormwater Plans) provide for an updated stormwater pit on Star Street to accommodate the amended driveway design and does not amend the dual occupancy stormwater design approved by the CDC. The parties therefore agree that the proposal will ensure that the effect of the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be likely beneficial, and the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised.

2. For the purposes of s 6.7 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development:

1. keeps to a minimum any direct, direct or cumulative adverse impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation;

2. will not have a direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impact on aquatic reserves;

3. minimises the erosion of land abutting a natural waterbody or the sedimentation of a natural waterbody; and

4. minimises any adverse impact on wetlands.

3. For the purposes of s 6.8 of the BC SEPP, the proposed development is unlikely to resolute in a release of pollutants that may have an adverse impact on the water quality of a natural waterbody or have any impact on the natural recession of floodwaters into wetlands and other riverine ecosystems.

4. For the purposes of s 6.9 of the BC SEPP, the:

1. Development has no impact on public access to and from natural waterbodies for recreational purposes;

2. development does not involve new or existing points of public access to natural water bodies; and

3. the Subject Land does not form part of a foreshore of a natural waterbody.

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

15. The relevant requirements of Pt 6.2 of the BC SEPP are therefore satisfied in respect of the Amended Development Application.

Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014

16. The Subject Land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 (RLEP). Development for the purposes of dual occupancies (attached) is permitted with consent in the R2 zone. The parties agree that the Amended Development Application is considered to be ancillary to the CDC approved dual occupancy. I have had regard to the objectives of the R2 zone which are extracted below:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

• To provide for a variety of housing types.

17. The parties agree that the Amended Development Application is consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone.

18. Pursuant to cl 6.2 of the RLEP relating to “earthworks”, the parties agree, and I accept that, the Amended Development Application requires minimal excavation and the relevant matters in cl 6.2(3) have been considered.

19. Pursuant to cl 6.4 relating to “stormwater management”, development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters set out in cl 6.4(3). The parties agree, and I accept that:

1. the dual occupancy stormwater plans approved by the CDC are not amended by this proposal;

2. the Stormwater Plans as part of the Amended Development Application satisfy the matters set out in cl 6.4(3) of the RLEP.

Ryde Development Control Plan 2014

20. Relevant provisions in the Ryde Development Control Plan 2014 have been considered at pp 8-13 of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Wen Architects (undated) (SEE).

Remaining matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act

21. In determining the Amended Development Application, I confirm that I have considered the matters listed in ss 4.15(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the EPA Act, and consider the proposal is capable of being approved.

22. In relation to s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act, the parties agree that the Development Application was notified in accordance with the Ryde Community Participation Plan. One submission was received objecting to the proposed development raising concerns regarding the design of the driveway and proposed landscaped area.

23. I am satisfied that the written submission received has been taken into consideration in the assessment and determination of the Amended Development Application.

Conclusion

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. The Court notes that:

1. The respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has agreed under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, to the applicant amending development application DA Number LDA2024/0258 in accordance with the plans and documents listed below:

Reference/ DWG No	Title/Description	Revision	Prepared by	Date
Architectural Plans
DA-110	Ground Floor_GA Plan	4	Wen Architects	24/04/2025
DA-500	Area Calculation	4	Wen Architects	24/04/2025
DA-510	Waste Management Plan	2	Wen Architects	24/04/2025
DA-700	Front Fence Details	3	Wen Architects	24/04/2025
Landscape Plans
LA-01	Landscape Plan	C	CMLA	06/05/2025
LA-02	Planting Schedule	C	CMLA	06/05/2025
LA_03	Indicative Perspective	C	CMLA	06/05/2025
Stormwater Management Plans
D1	Cover Sheet and Notes	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025
D2	Roadwork Plan	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025
D3	General Arrangement Plan	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025
D4	Driveway Long Sections	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025
D5	Proposed Pit P1 Details	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025
D6	Standard Council Details	F	HYDRACOR	06/05/2025

2. The applicant filed the amended plans outlined above with the Court on 4 June 2025.

Orders

27. The Court orders that:

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. Development Application LDA2024/0258 for alterations and additions to a Complying Development Certificate approved dual occupancy development including two driveway crossings, widening of garage door, front fence and landscape works on Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 27701, also known as 2 Star Street, Eastwood, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

N Targett

Commissioner of the Court

**********

Annexure A.253 KB.pdf

Decision last updated: 13 June 2025