Background
Salerno Holdings Pty Ltd appealed under s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) against the Ku-ring-gai Local Panel’s refusal of development application No eDA0313/25. The application sought consent to construct a residential flat building and associated development at 1 Russell Avenue, Lindfield, legally described as Lot B in DP 412764.
In Salerno Holdings Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2026] NSWLEC 1647, delivered on 29 September 2026, Commissioner Walsh explained why consent should be granted. The parties had filed generally agreed draft consent conditions, subject to the Council’s position, but disagreed about when an existing development consent for the site should be surrendered. After resolving that issue, the Court directed them to file revised conditions reflecting its finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that the appeal should be upheld and that development consent should be granted. The parties had filed revised consent conditions in accordance with the Court’s earlier finding, allowing final orders to be made.
The Court granted consent for the residential flat building and associated development subject to the conditions in Annexure A. It also ordered the return of the exhibits except for Exhibit A, which the Court retained.
Key Takeaways
- The Court upheld Salerno Holdings’ appeal from the Ku-ring-gai Local Panel’s refusal of the development application.
- Consent was granted for the proposed residential flat building and associated development at 1 Russell Avenue, Lindfield.
- The final orders followed the parties’ submission of revised conditions addressing the timing for surrender of an existing development consent.
Why It Matters
The decision completes the proceedings addressed substantively in Salerno No 1 by converting the Court’s stated conclusion into final approval subject to conditions. For planning practitioners, it highlights that a dispute over the timing of surrendering an existing consent can affect the final form of conditions even after the Court has determined that a new development consent should be granted.