- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence, Consumer Industries and Transport industries
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.
Issue: The question for determination by the LEC was whether the DA was "integrated development" under s 4.46 of the EP&A Act. If so, the 60-day deemed-refusal period in s 91(2)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 would apply, rendering the appeal premature.
Decision and reasoning: The LEC found, as a matter of fact, that the proposed works required a WM Act approval; accordingly, the DA fell within s 4.46 and was integrated development. The LEC emphasised that classification does not depend on whether the applicant elects the "integrated development" option on the DA form; it follows from the criteria read with s 1.4 (definitions) and s 4.15 (matters for consideration) of the EP&A Act. Because the 60-day period applied, the appeal lodged at day 41 was filed before appeal rights accrued and the Court's jurisdiction under s 8.14 of the EP&A Act had not been enlivened.
Dickson C stated as follows:
'[27] Applying the principles of statutory interpretation summarised in Stroud and Anor v CMZZJ Investments, the provisions of the EPA Act, including the definition at s 1.4 (at [14] and [15]) and s 4.46, to the facts of these proceedings I find as follows:
...(3) It is an agreed fact in the proceedings that an "Aquifer Interference Approval" is required under s 91 of the WM Act in order for the development to be carried out.
(4) An approval under s 91 of the WM Act is listed in s 4.46(1) as an approval to which the integrated development provisions apply.
(5) None of the exclusions to the operation of the provisions which are listed at s 4.46(2) to s 4.46(4) apply.
(6) When ss 1.4 and 4.46 of the EPA Act are read together, a development application is integrated development if it requires an approval of the kind listed at s 4.46(1), in addition to development consent, in order for the development to be carried out. This is a finding of fact that arises from the application of the provisions.
(7) Whilst the development application form includes an option for an applicant to nominate that their development is integrated, in my view this does not subvert the effect of Div 4.8. In evaluating the development application under s 4.15 of the EPA Act, a consent authority is required to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application. In this case, one of those matters is the application of s 4.46 of the EPA Act and a determination of whether the development application falls within the ambit of integrated development as defined by s 4.46(1) of the EPA Act.
[28] Having made a finding that the development is integrated development I accept that the appeal was lodged with the Court at a time when the right to engage the Court's jurisdiction on appeal had not arisen and was not yet available.'
The matter was not immediately dismissed, as the DA remained undetermined and the planning issues had been resolved, including the issue of general terms of approval by WaterNSW as the relevant approval body. In subsequent consent orders (Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 1412), the Court allowed amendments under s 64 and s 65 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, ultimately granting consent to the DA.
How does Artmade sit with Maule?
- Maule, which was decided by Lloyd J and is binding, has often been cited for an "opt-in" understanding of integrated development.
- Artmade did not follow or distinguish Maule; instead it applied a reading of s 1.4 and s 4.46 of the EP&A Act, treating integrated status as objective and fact-dependent.
- While Maule remains the binding authority, Artmade marks a departure from the elective ('opt-in') framing in a Commissioner's application of the provisions. In practice, expect closer scrutiny of whether any listed approval is required "in order to carry out" the development.
Practical implications
Where integrated development may be engaged, ensure the correct deemed-refusal period (40 vs 60 days) is applied, and verify before filing that appeal rights have actually accrued and have not expired. The applicable timeframe can be complex and will vary with the nature of the DA and the status of the assessment process.
Until a binding appellate decision revisits Maule, applicants should proceed on the basis that integrated status may be a not be an "opt-in". This requires early identification of any co-approval triggers and aligning programs, notification steps, and appeal timing accordingly.
If you have questions about integrated development, please contact our Local Government and Planning Team.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.