Stink Over Sewer Sinks Aland’s $282m Leppington Plans
The NSW Land and Environment Court has blocked developer Aland’s Leppington town centre plans due to a sewer infrastructure issue.
After the proposals for a 176-key hotel and shopping centre were not determined in time by the Camden Council, Aland appealed to the LEC.
However, the developer was knocked back by the court due to points of contention including the adequacy of sewer infrastructure to the site, which required works on an adjoining plot not owned by Aland.
The court also considered the project’s conformity to local precinct plans and controls, determining that the proposals were “antipathetic” to some of the council’s vision for the site.
Aland submitted initial plans for its plans for the site at 173 and 183 Rickard Road, Leppington in late 2024.
The developer said in its development application to the Camden Council that it “presents a strategic opportunity to activate Leppington Town Centre and deliver a new civic precinct and retail attraction for Leppington”.
The DKO Architects-designed development on part of a 3.2ha site, near the Leppington train station, had an estimated cost of $282 million.
The detailed application for the suburb 52km from the Sydney CBD within the South-West Growth Area included a 176-key, six-storey hotel.
Its four-storey shopping centre proposed a total floor area of 40,270 square metres.
Parking would be provided for 1394 car parking spaces.
The plans also outlined external road upgrade works including a new intersection at Byron and Rickard roads.
Aland’s town centre proposal was part of a major development plan for the area that includes 461 affordable infill apartments across eight towers, according to residential plans also filed in 2024.
Aland’s case before the LEC
The major issues on which the case hung were whether adequate arrangements had been made for public utilities structure, and whether it was compliant with the Camden Growth Centres precinct plan and planning proposals put forward by the council and state.
The site is largely zoned commercial core, with a small section zoned for infrastructure for future road widening purposes.
However, for the development to be serviced, there needed to be an extension of the reticulation sewer and water main to the site, according to hearing documents.
At a hearing in October 2025, the court was told that the proposed development required the construction of a sewer line through a property at 134 Dickson Road, which was not owned by Aland.
The council argued that in the absence of “tangible and objective evidence” of an adequate arrangement with the adjoining site’s owner for construction of the sewer works on its land, the Court could not uphold the appeal.
Aland argued that as an easement was not required by Sydney Water, there was no need for the landowner’s consent for the installation of sewerage infrastructure,
The LEC agreed with the council when it handed down its orders in late last month.
It said that there “must be some property right” in order to carry out sewer works and permanently install a pipe on its neighbour’s land.
Over the question of whether the case complied with the planning proposals for the wider precinct, Aland argued that the approval of the site would not “frustrate” the council’s vision for the land.
Aland argued that the council’s decision not to tender the public submissions made by landowners and stakeholders following notification suggests “real community opposition” to the proposal.
But in comparing the council’s proposals and the development application, the LEC commissioner Susan Dixon highlighted the removal of parks and plazas which were initially planned by the council and state government.
Dixon said Aland’s plan “clearly conflicts” with components and policies of the planning proposal.
The LEC dismissed Aland’s appeal and refused to approve the development application.
Aland could not comment from The Urban Developer.
