Para-ere Holdings Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Para-ere Holdings Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1626 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 4 September 2026 Date of orders: 23 September 2026 Decision date: 23 September 2026 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Targett C Decision: The Court orders that: (1) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the agreed sum of $10,540 within 28 days of the date of these orders. (2) The appeal is upheld. (3) Development Application No. DA2025/1662, as amended, for the alterations and additions and change of use to the Approved Development Application No. DA2022/2256 from a mixed use development to shop top housing and associated works on land legally described as Lot 100 in DP 1009880 and known as 22 Raglan Street, Manly, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A. Catchwords: APPEAL — Development application — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 8.7, 8.10, 8.11, 8.15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 17, 34 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 29, 38 Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013, cll 4.3, 4.4, 5.10, 5.21,

6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9, 6.12 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Ch 6, Pt 6.2, Divs 2, 3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Chs 2, 4, 6 ss 15C, 16, 19, 20, 21, 144, 145, 147, 175, 177, 180 Sch 9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022, s 2.48 Texts Cited: Manly Development Control Plan, 2013 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Para-ere Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Zhang (Solicitor) (Applicant) M Cottom (Solicitor) (Respondent) Solicitors: Macpherson Kelley (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 2026/65413 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment COMMISSIONER: Background This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) by the applicant against the respondent’s deemed refusal of the applicant’s development application No. DA2025/1662 (Development Application). The Development Application sought consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of shop-top housing on land identified as Lot 100 in Deposited Plan 1009880, known as 22 Raglan Street, Manly (Subject Land). 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 (NSW) (LEC Act). The Development Application The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 13 November 2025. The Development Application was publicly notified between 17 November and 19 December 2025. Nine submissions were received in response to the notification objecting to the proposal. The proposal was reviewed by the respondent’s Design Sustainability Advisory Panel (Panel) on 11 December 2025. The Panel’s Review Report made 29 recommendations and ultimately did not support the proposal in its current form. The Development Application was referred to Ausgrid pursuant to (then) s 2.48 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (TI SEPP). Ausgrid provided referral conditions on 16 December 2025. On 16 February 2026, the proceedings were commenced in relation to the deemed refusal of the Development Application, being within the appeal period prescribed by ss 8.10 and 8.11 of the EPA Act. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the LEC Act between the parties, which was terminated on 17 August 2026. Following this, the parties reached agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. A signed s 34 agreement was provided to the Court on 1 September 2026 following the

applicant agreeing to amend the Development Application (Amended Development Application). The signed s 34 agreement is supported by an agreed jurisdictional statement. The agreed amendments to the Development Application relevantly include: amendments to the façade to better address the heritage setting; reduction of the bulk of the built form; reduction of balcony extents and presentation; and increased front setback for the tower element. 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 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 s34(3) of the LEC Act). I form this state of satisfaction for the reasons that follow. Owners consent The applicant is the registered proprietor of the Subject Land and provided owners consent to the lodgement of the Development Application (see Class 1 Application, tabs 1 and 2). State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 Section 4.6(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP) provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land

unless: (a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated; and (b) if the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and (c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose. I accept the parties’ submission that the requirements of s 4.6 of the RH SEPP have been considered and that the Subject Land is suitable to accommodate the development the subject of the Amended Development Application. In determining the Amended Development Application, I have considered the matters set out in s 4.6(1) of the RH SEPP, and have had regard to the fact that the Subject Land has a longstanding history of residential use with no known contaminating activities. State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 Chapter 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (BC SEPP) applies to the Amended Development Application because 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. The following documents

provide supporting information for consideration of this development under general controls for development in this catchment set out in Pt 6.2, Div 2 and Div 3: Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GSA Planning, dated November 2025 (SEE) (see p 34); Civil and Stormwater plans prepared by JN Responsive Engineering, dated 29 October 2025 (Stormwater Plans); Geotechnical Assessment prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 27 October 2025 (Geotechnical Assessment); Geotechnical Letter regarding groundwater prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 16 January 2026 (Geotechnical Letter); Floodplain Management Report prepared by Van Der Meer dated 30 October 2025 (Flood Report); the agreed conditions of consent. Having regard to the above documents, I confirm that I have considered, and am satisfied of, the matters set out in Pt 6.2 that are relevant to the proposal. State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 The Amended Development Application is accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 1820270M_02 prepared by Senica Consultancy Group Pty Ltd dated 18 August 2026 in compliance with the relevant requirements under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 The parties agree that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) applies to the Amended Development

Application. Chapter 2 of the Housing SEPP relating to affordable housing applies to the Amended Development Application as the proposed development meets the requirements of s 15C of the Housing SEPP. This is because the Amended Development Application is permissible with consent under the Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 (MLEP) (being shop top housing in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone), provides more than 10% gross floor area as affordable housing, and is carried out within an accessible area. The Amended Development Application seeks the benefit of a floor space ratio (FSR) bonus under s 16 of the Housing SEPP. The Subject Land has a permitted maximum FSR of 2.2:1 (see [32] below). In accordance with s 16(1) of the Housing SEPP, the parties agree, and I accept, that the maximum FSR permitted on the Subject Land, in accordance with the 30% bonus, is 2.86:1. The parties further agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application proposes a FSR of 2.77:1 and therefore complies with this provision. The Amended Development Application similarly seeks the benefit of a height bonus under s 16(3) of the Housing SEPP. The Subject Land has a permitted maximum height of 24m (see [32] below). In accordance with s 16(3) of the Housing SEPP, the parties agree, and I accept, that the maximum height permitted on the Subject Land, in accordance with the 30% bonus, is

31.2m. The parties further agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application complies with this provision. Section 19 of the Housing SEPP sets out the non-discretionary development standards that apply to affordable housing development. The parties agree, and I accept, that the proposal satisfies the requirements in s 19 of the Housing SEPP (SEE, p 36). Pursuant to s 20 of the Housing SEPP relating to design requirements, development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority has considered whether the design is compatible with the desirable elements of the character of the local area or the desired future character for precincts undergoing transition. The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters in s 20(3) have been considered having regard to the SEE, p 37 Section 21 of the Housing SEPP relevantly requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the affordable housing component of the development will be used for affordable housing for at least 15 years following the issue of an occupation certificate and that the affordable housing component will be managed by a registered community housing provider. The parties agree, and I accept, that Condition 61 of the Agreed Conditions adequately addresses s 21 of the Housing SEPP. The parties agree that Ch 4 of the Housing SEPP also applies to the Amended Development Application as the proposed

development relates to residential apartment development (being for shop top housing) under s 144 of the Housing SEPP. Section 145(2) of the Housing SEPP requires the consent authority to refer the application to the design review panel for the local government area in which the development will be carried out for advice on the quality of the design of the development. As set out at [5] above, the Development Application was considered by the Panel on 11 December 2025 and provided its comments and recommendations in respect of the proposal. Section 147 of the Housing SEPP requires the consent authority to have considered the matters listed in s 147(1) of the Housing SEPP (which includes the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and comments of the Panel) before granting consent. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is satisfactory in light of the principles set out in Sch 9 of the Housing SEPP and the ADG, having regard to Design Verification Statement prepared by Carlisle Architects dated 14 August 2026 (Design Statement), ADG Compliance Table prepared by Carlisle Architects dated 14 August 2026 (ADG Compliance Table) and jurisdictional statement which address the requirements of s 147(1) of the Housing SEPP. For completeness, the Design Statement also satisfies the requirements of s 29 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021

(NSW) (EPA Regulation). The parties agree that Ch 6 of the Housing SEPP relating to low and mid rise housing applies to the Amended Development Application as the Subject Land is relevantly located within the “low and mid rise inner area” for the purposes of the Chapter. Section 175 of the Housing SEPP relating to relevant development standards for low and mid rise housing inner area relevantly provides at (3) that development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of shop top housing with a building height of up to 24m unless the consent authority is satisfied the building will have six storeys or fewer (Storey Development Standard). The parties agree that as the maximum permitted building height is 31.2m (utilising the affordable housing height bonus discussed above), the Storey Development Standard is not applicable in this case. For the purposes of s 177 of the Housing SEPP relating to landscaping – residential flat buildings or shop top housing, the parties agree, and I accept, that the Tree Canopy Guide for Low and Mid Rise Housing has been considered as part of the proposed development (SEE, p 40). For the purposes s 180 of the Housing SEPP relating to non-discretionary development standards – residential flat buildings and shop top housing in Zone R3 or R4, s 180(2)(a) provides for a maximum FSR of 2.2:1 and s 180(2)(c) provides for a maximum

building height of 24m. The parties agree that the proposal utilises the benefits of the affordable housing height and FSR bonus discussed above. Manly Local Environmental Plan 2013 The Subject Land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the MLEP. Accordingly, shop top housing is permitted with consent in the R3 zone. I have had regard to the zone objectives which are extracted below: • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. • To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment. • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. • To encourage the revitalisation of residential areas by rehabilitation and suitable redevelopment. • To encourage the provision and retention of tourist accommodation that enhances the role of Manly as an international tourist destination. Pursuant to cl 4.3 of the MLEP relating to height of buildings, a maximum height of 11m applies to the Subject Land. However, noting the maximum permissible height of 24m under s 180(2)(c) of the Housing SEPP and the additional height bonus under s 16(3) of the Housing SEPP, the Amended Development Application may be approved notwithstanding cl 4.3 of the MLEP. Pursuant to cl 4.4 of the MLEP relating to floor space ratio (FSR), a maximum FSR development standard

of 0.75:1 applies to the Subject Land. However, noting the maximum FSR of 2.2:1 under s 180(2)(a) of the Housing SEPP and the additional FSR bonus under s 16(1) of the Housing SEPP, the parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application may be approved notwithstanding cl 4.4 of the MLEP. Pursuant to cl 5.10(4) of the MLEP relating to heritage conservation, the consent authority must relevantly consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the area concerned before granting consent. The Subject Land is located within the Pittwater Road Conservation Area (HCA) and cl 5.10 of the MLEP therefore applies. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application may be approved having regard to cl 5.10(4) of the MLEP on the basis that the: Amended Development Application does not propose any additional demolition works than those already approved on the Subject Land; and proposal is accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage dated 14 August 2026 which considers the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the HCA. Pursuant to cl 5.21 of the MLEP relating to flood planning, a small portion of the Subject Land is considered flood prone and the consent authority must therefore consider the matters listed in cl 5.21(3) and be satisfied of the matters in cl

5.21(2). The parties agree and I accept that the matters in cl 5.21(3) and cl 5.21(2) have been relevantly considered and satisfied having regard to the Floodplain Management Report prepared by Van Der Meer dated 30 October 2025 (Flood Report) and agreed conditions (see, for example, conditions 10 and 71). Pursuant to cl 6.1 of the MLEP relating to acid sulfate soils, the parties agree, and I accept that, the Subject Land is identified as Class 4 land and the Amended Development Application proposes a basement of up to 3.9m in depth below the natural ground surface. The proposal is accompanied by a Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment prepared by JK Environments dated 8 October 2025 (PASS Report) which was prepared with reference to the Acid Sulfate Soils Manual and concludes that there is a negligible risk from disturbing acid sulfate materials to a depth of approximately 1.85m below the natural ground surface. Notwithstanding, an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan has been included in the PASS to management any risks. The parties agree, and I accept, that the requirements of cl 6.1 of the MLEP are satisfied. Pursuant to cl 6.2 of the MLEP relating to earthworks, the consent authority must consider the matters specified in cl 6.2(3) when deciding whether to grant consent for earthworks. The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters listed in cl 6.2(3) have been

considered having regard to the Geotechnical Assessment prepared by JK Geotechnics dated 27 October 2025 (Geotech Assessment), correspondence from Water NSW dated 23 January 2026 and agreed conditions of consent. Pursuant to cl 6.4 of the MLEP relating to stormwater management, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied of the matters in cl 6.4(3). The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters in cl 6.4(3) are satisfied having regard to the Stormwater Engineering Plans prepared by JN Engineering dated 29 October 2025. Pursuant to cl 6.9 of the MLEP relating to foreshore scenic protection area, development must not be granted to development unless the consent authority has considered the matters in cl 6.9(3). The parties agree, and I accept, that the matters in cl 6.9(3) have been considered having regard to p 33 of the SEE. Pursuant to cl 6.12 of the MLEP relating to essential services, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that services essential for the development are available of that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required. The parties agree, and I accept, that cl 6.12 is satisfied. Manly Development Control Plan 2013 The Amended Development Application has considered and addressed the relevant provisions of the Manly

Development Control Plan 2013 (SEE pp 41-56). Remaining matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act The matters set out in s 4.15(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the EPA Act are addressed in the SEE (pp 57-66). As set out at [4] above, for the purposes of s 4.15(d) of the EPA Act, the Development Application was publicly notified between 17 November and 19 December 2025. Nine submissions were received in response to the notification objecting to the proposal raising concerns including: geotechnical risks from excavation and site works; view impacts; privacy and overlooking; inconsistency with previously approved development; noise impacts; solar access/overshadowing impacts; inconsistency with desired future character; construction impacts; heritage impacts; traffic impacts and insufficient parking; geotechnical risks; non-compliance with local and state controls and guidance; water management and stormwater disposal concerns; excessive height and over development; narrow setbacks and inadequate spatial separation; inadequate landscaping and tree protection; inadequate waste management facilities; and unrealistic “affordable housing”. I am satisfied that the written submissions received have been taken into consideration in the assessment and determination of the Amended Development Application. Conclusion 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. 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. The Court notes that the respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to the applicant amending Development Application No DA2025/1662 to rely upon the following amended documents as filed with the Court: Drawing No and Revision Title Prepared by Date Architectural Plans 1 Drawing No: LEC-00 Rev 4 Title Sheet Carlisle Architects 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-01 Rev 4 Site Plan/Site Analysis 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-02 Rev 4 Basement Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-03 Rev 4 Ground Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-04 Rev 4 First Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-05 Rev 4 Second Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-06 Rev 4 Third Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-07 Rev 4 Fourth Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-08 Rev 4 Fifth Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-09 Rev 4 Sixth Floor Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-10 Rev 4 Level 07 Plan 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-11 Rev 4 Roof Plan 7

August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-20 Rev 4 South Elevation 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-21 Rev 4 North Elevation 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-22 Rev 4 East Elevation 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-23 Rev 4 West Elevation 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-30 Rev 4 Section AA 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-31 Rev 4 Section BB 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-32 Rev 4 Section CC 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-33 Rev 4 Section DD 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-40 Rev 4 GFA Diagrams 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-50 Rev 4 Perspectives 01 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-51 Rev 4 Perspectives 02 7 August 2026 Drawing No: LEC-110 Rev 4 Façade Images 7 August 2026 Landscape Plans 2 Drawing No: L-01 Rev G Landscape Plan Ground Floor Space Landscape Designers 7 August 2026 Drawing No: L-02 Rev E Landscape Plan Level 1-2 7 August 2026 Drawing No: L-03 Rev E Landscape Plan Level 3-4 7 August 2026 Drawing No: L-05 Rev E Landscape Plan 7 August 2026 Documents 3 Letter Regarding Low and Mid-Rise Housing Approvals – ADG Separation GSA Planning 30 June 2026 4 Contention 12 Traffic Access Matters Varga Traffic Planning 12 August 2026 5 Swept Turn Path Assessment – B99 & B85 Vehicles – Basement Waiting Bay Varga Traffic Planning 4 August 2026 6 Statement of Heritage Impact Weir Phillips Heritage 14 August 2026 7 Design Verification Statement Carlisle Architects 14 August 2026 8 Apartment Design Guide – Compliance

Table Carlisle Architects 14 August 2026 9 BASIX Certificate No: 1820270M_02 Senica Consultancy Group Pty Limited 18 August 2026 10 NatHERS Certificate Nos #HR-NOSJEI-02; #HR-2DM9B2-02; #HR-HUFDYB-02; #HR-MY09EP-02; #HR-Z0WA2B-02; #HR-SC7RQT-02; #HR-LDAXAH-02; #HR-1OBLH6-02; #HR-U7PU8W-02; #HR-D9RQEE-02; #HR-P9AKCN-02; #HR-OA4GJD-02; #HR-TMURTA-02; #HR-9E6UE2-02; #HR-293U5A-02; #HR-DK1O65-02 and stamped plans Senica Consultancy Group Pty Limited 18 August 2026 Orders The Court orders that: The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the agreed sum of $10,540 within 28 days of the date of these orders. The appeal is upheld. Development Application No. DA2025/1662, as amended, for the alterations and additions and change of use to the Approved Development Application No. DA2022/2256 from a mixed use development to shop top housing and associated works on land legally described as Lot 100 in DP 1009880 and known as 22 Raglan Street, Manly, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A. N Targett Commissioner of the Court ** Annexure A (410 KB, pdf) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 September 2026