The recent decision in Symin v The Hills Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1840 highlights the complexities of residential development above critical infrastructure, with Sydney Metro playing a role in the proceedings.

This article explores the circumstances under which Sydney Metro became a party to the proceedings and draws key takeaways for parties navigating similar situations.

The Case Overview

The matter concerned a development application for a three-storey dwelling at West Pennant Hills, located above the Sydney Metro North-West Line rail corridor. The application was initially deemed to be refused by The Hills Shire Council, prompting an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

Sydney Metro’s involvement stemmed from its statutory responsibility as the relevant rail authority under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (Transport and Infrastructure SEPP). The proposed development included ground penetration exceeding 2 meters, potentially impacting the rail corridor.

Why Was Sydney Metro a Party?

Sydney Metro became a party due to the development’s potential impact on its infrastructure.

Specifically:

1. Mandatory referral – section 2.99 of the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP required the DA to be referred to Sydney Metro because the site lies above the rail corridor, and the construction involved substantial excavation.
2. Engineering assessment – Sydney Metro requested detailed survey plans, cross-sections, and engineering assessments to ensure the development would not adversely impact rail infrastructure. These requirements were met in the amended DA.
3. Concurrence and conditions – Sydney Metro provided concurrence, imposing specific conditions to safeguard the corridor’s structural integrity. These conditions were incorporated into the consent.

Key Takeaways

1. Understand referral requirements – development proposals intersecting with State infrastructure often require referral under relevant SEPPs, which applicants should proactively address during the planning phase.
2. Engage with requirements early – early engagement with the issues that could concern a government department (such as excavation when it comes to Sydney Metro) can streamline the approval process. Submitting comprehensive documentation, including engineering assessments, can prevent delays.
3. Factor in additional costs and timeframes – developments near or above major infrastructure may face higher costs and extended timeframes due to the need for detailed assessments and potential design modifications.
4. Government oversight is crucial – local councils and state agencies must work together to balance development objectives with infrastructure protection. Clear guidelines and coordination can minimise conflicts.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of robust documentation when developments intersect with critical infrastructure. Understanding the legal and technical obligations early can significantly improve the timing and delivery of outcomes. Fostering collaboration between councils and infrastructure agencies also ensures developments proceed safely and efficiently.

Read more

You can access a full version of the judgment below.