Key points
- In a recent Land and Environment Court (LEC) decision, the LEC treated a development application (DA) as integrated development even though the applicant did not elect it to be processed as such.
- For years, practitioners have treated the integrated development scheme in Div 4.8 of Pt 4 of the EP&A Act as a device that allows applicants to invoke to coordinate approvals. On that view, an applicant might “opt in” or proceed as a standard DA.
- In Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1249 (Artmade), the Court re-centred the analysis on the text of s 4.46: development is “integrated” if, in order to carry it out, the proponent requires both development consent and a listed approval. On that basis, the DA was integrated development, irrespective of the applicant’s election on the DA form submitted to Council.
- The Court held the classification turns on the criteria in ss 1.4 and 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), not on whether the election was made on the DA form.
- The LEC held that because the work required an aquifer interference approval under s 91 of the Water Management Act 2000, the DA attracted the 60-day deemed-refusal period for integrated development (rather than 40 days). As such the appeal lodged at day 41 was premature and jurisdiction had not yet arisen.
- Although a judge’s decision in Maule v Liporoni [2002] NSWLEC 25 (Maule) has long been understood as supporting an “opt-in” approach, the Commissioner in Artmade did not follow that view. This creates complexity until a binding appellate clarification occurs.
Artmade in brief
Facts: The DA was for a childcare centre including a basement. The geotechnical report indicated that excavation for the basement was likely to intercept groundwater, so dewatering would be required during excavation and construction of the basement. Because that dewatering would interfere with an aquifer, the works required an aquifer interference approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). The applicant did not nominate the DA as integrated development and, instead, filed a Class 1 appeal on day 41 after lodgement, relying on the 40-day deemed-refusal period that applies to standard DAs. [...]
