Australia, July 25 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 25:

1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal is in respect of development for the purpose of alterations and additions to a dwelling house located at 42 Wentworth Road, Vaucluse, legally known as Lot 1 DP 315736 for which development consent was originally granted on 1 June 2023 (the June Consent).

2. The Applicant now seeks to modify the June Consent, pursuant to s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). To this end, Modification application No DA441/2022/1 was lodged with Woollahra Municipal Council (the Council) on 16 July 2024, and was publicly notified between 7 August-22 August 2024.

3. In accordance with its usual practice, the Court arranged a mandatory conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) on 2 June 2025, at which I presided.

4. Prior to the conciliation conference, the Applicant prepared amended plans and other documents that, in the view of the Council at the commencement of proceedings, addressed the matters in contention subject to an adjournment to settle agreed conditions of consent.

5. On the basis of those amended plans, and the agreed conditions of consent, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. To this end, the Council approved the amending of the application by the Applicant, in accordance with s 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

6. A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was submitted to the Court on 13 June 2025, and further material provided to the Court in the days following.

7. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the Applicant, noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s 34 agreement.

8. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision if the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties prepared a jurisdictional statement to assist the Court in understanding how the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the agreed orders at [33].

9. I formed an opinion of satisfaction that each of the pre-jurisdictional requirements identified by the parties have been met, for the reasons that follow.

10. First, as the appeal is made pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act, as the presiding Commissioner, I must be satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions, being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. In making these orders I have taken into consideration those matters under s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act as are relevant to the modification application, as well as the reasons given by the consent authority for the grant of the consent.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1979b699168261634b733f38)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.