This was an appeal against the refusal of a development application by Strathfield Municipal Council for the construction of a multi-unit housing development. The applicant proposed the construction of 72 apartments contained within four-storey buildings plus attics, offices, cafe, corner store and commercial facilities. Railway Lines were located to the south and to the west of the proposed site and industrial development to the north and part of the eastern boundary. A rehabilitated putrescible waste and chemical disposal tip adjoined part of the northern and eastern boundaries. Residential development adjoined the site. The questions the court had to analyze were: 1. whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable visual impact, provide inadequate community facilities and have inadequate deep soil planting; 2. whether the proposed development would unacceptably impact on future residents by way of noise and vibration; 3. whether the proposed development generated unacceptable increased traffic on local roads, and internal access; 4. whether the site had been adequately remediated for residential use; and 5. whether the adjoining tip site would unacceptably impact on future residents by way of odours and noise. There were concerns by objectors to the development that the site was unsuitable for the proposed residential development because of the likely health problems from the existing site contamination and proximity to the tip site, and concerns related to odour. The court analyzed issues concerning town planning, noise and vibration, traffic and parking, land contamination and odours and noise from the tip site. Regarding land contamination the court found that the issues in question related to the effectiveness of the management system to control leachate on the tip site and whether the site remediation had been to a state that made it suitable for the proposed development. The tip site was formerly used for quarrying. When quarrying ceased, the peak was back filled with waste materials, including putrescible and chemical waste. As a result of waste degradation, landfill leachate and gases were generated. A leachate and gas management system had been installed to control the leachate and remove odorous materials from the gas. For the site of the proposed development, site audit reports and statements had been issued. They concluded that the land in question had been remediated to a state suitable for the proposed development. The audits of the tip site furthermore supported the view that there would not be objectionable odours on the subject site, though it was possible that the visibility of leachate and gas treatment plant might cause future residents to perceive an odour problem. Despite that, there could not be a guarantee that future residents would never experience any odours from the tip site. It was recommended therefore that purchasers be alerted to this possibility. In conclusion, the court held that there was no impediment to the granting of its consent. The appeal was upheld.