Australia, Aug. 23 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 23:

1. COMMISSIONER: This Class 1 appeal relates to a site on the northern foreshore of the Georges River that is proposed for development. The applicant in these proceedings lodged Development Application DA2024/0621 on 20 December 2024, seeking consent for the demolition, tree removal, construction of a four-storey dwelling house, swimming pool, inclinator, boatshed and associated works on land known as Lot 162, DP11934 at 34 Marine Drive, Oatley NSW.

2. As the DA was otherwise undetermined, the Applicant filed an appeal in Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction on 27 February 2025 under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act).

3. The Court arranged a 2-day conciliation conference between the parties, listed for 11 and 14 July 2025 under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), at which I presided.

4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement on the matters in contention, subject to the preparation of amended plans for which a brief adjournment was granted, and a signed agreement was submitted to the Court on 14 July 2025, in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act.

5. The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the s 34 agreement before the Court. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application.

6. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared by the Applicant, and 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.

7. 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' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised.

8. For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021

9. The site is located within an area identified as R2 Low Density Residential, according to the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 (GRLEP), in which development for the purpose of dwelling houses is permitted with consent, where consistent with the following objectives of the R2 zone:

* To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

* To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

* To promote a high standard of urban design and built form that enhances the local character of the suburb and achieves a high level of residential amenity.

* To provide for housing within a landscaped setting that enhances the existing environmental character of the Georges River local government area.

10. Although no development is proposed beyond the R2 zone, I note that Georges River to the west is zoned W2 Recreational Waterways in which the objectives are as follows:

* To protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways.

* To allow for water-based recreation and related uses.

* To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1982a0b5aaaeeb3f6483cf53)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.