Every figure on this page is read from one live report — 21 Railway St, Werrington NSW 2747, Australia — and rebuilt from it whenever the page is made. Open it beside this and check any of them.
Six plans, one record
The same land. Pick a plan.
State what you mean to do and the verdicts recompute for that intent. The property doesn’t change; what you want from it does.
Six plans · one record
●Unsuitable on the evidence checked
Unsuitable as a warehouse on the evidence checked
Zoned R3 Residential under Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 — a warehouse appears inconsistent with the zone and requires council confirmation. Confirm permitted uses with council; this reads the zone layer, not a parcel-specific permitted-use determination. Confirm with a qualified consultant.
Leading finding for this plan: Planning zone · same 25 checks as every other plan
The facts do not change between these. Every plan is read against the same 25 checks on the same parcel; what changes is which finding leads and what it means for what you intend to do.
Everything we checked
25 checks, and how sure we are on each.
Not hit-or-clear. Every check comes back in one of six honest states — a flag, a clean clear, a checked-with-caveat, regional context, one still to confirm, and the one thing not held for this address. The spread is the point.
1 flagged5 clear10 checked · caveat7 regional context1 to confirm1 not held
Wind region (AS/NZS 1170.2)2022 1170.2 Wind Regions for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia). https://dx.doi.org/10.26186/146359clear
Ground / geotechGeoscience Australia Layered Geology of Australia 1:1M × TERN SLGA (CSIRO)regional context
Soil & geologyTERN SLGA (CSIRO)regional context
Climate & rainfallSILO BOMregional context
Planning
11
Planning zoneNSW Land Zoning Map (ePlanning Principal Planning Layers)checked · caveat
Where a verdict turns on a number, the report shows the number and the clause it is measured against — so you can see exactly which figure to argue with.
697 m² measured − 400 m² × 2 required = 103 m² short
Against the mapped minimum lot size under Clause 4.1 of the Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010. The 800 m² is 400 doubled, not a threshold of its own — a reader checking the instrument looks for 400.
The NSW Valuer General — Bulk Land Values series for this parcel, ending at $848,000. These are the Valuer General’s determined land values for this property on each base date shown. They are the record only — not a market valuation, not an estimate, and not advice.
The street, placed
What the neighbours applied to do — now on the map.
449 approvals counted within 1 km. 195 of them carry coordinates, on 80 distinct points — many share an address, so one point can carry several (the busiest carries 34). That is why the map shows 80 dots and not 195: one dot is one location, sized by how many sit on it. The nearest is just 1 m away, and the largest a 299-lot subdivision 405 m off (PAN-445295, lodged 2024).
the subject nearest · 1 mone dot = one location, sized by approvals on it299-lot · 405 m · 2024
13 within 200 m · 279 within 500 m · 449 within 1 km — each ring contains the ones inside it. 449 counted within 1 km; 195 carry coordinates, sitting on 80 distinct points — one dot is one location, and it grows with the number of approvals on it (the busiest carries 34). Count the dots and you should get 80. The rest are counted honestly and not placed. The largest is marked on its ring, not as a pin — the register gives it a distance, not a bearing. As at 2026-08-10.
Nothing on this figure is fetched. Each pin is a real row from the NSW register, drawn as a metre offset from the subject — so it renders the same offline, behind a strict content policy, and in a printed report.
Two honest edges, re-checked against the live report every time these figures are rebuilt. Neither is dressed up as a clearance.
Coverage gap · not a clear
Flood
“We couldn’t confirm flood mapping for this parcel — no flood control is mapped here, but NSW flood mapping is published council by council, so that can mean either no flood hazard or mapping this council hasn’t submitted. That’s a gap in our coverage, not a clear result; check with the local council or floodplain authority if flood risk matters for your plans.”
NSW DCCEEW EPI
Not held for this address
Future land use (PSP)
outside integrated coverage — not a clearance There is no future-land-use layer for this parcel, so none is shown — and its absence is not read as “nothing planned”.
Read from the record · not written
No figure on this page was typed.
Each number is read from the report and rebuilt by a deriver every time the page is made, so it cannot drift from the report it quotes — including the six counts above, which are tallied from the check list rather than written beside it. Some layers, like the sun’s-path model, are computed live from the parcel geometry rather than stored, so they render on the report even though no field for them sits in the data. Present because it is derived, not absent because a column is empty.
Figures rebuilt 2026-09-15.
You’ve seen what KRAYN found here.
One address · 6 possible plans · 25 checks · every source named.