Australia, Sept. 1 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 1:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) being an appeal against the refusal of Modification application under s 4.55(2) to amend approved DA1383/2021 to vary the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) and update supporting plans and documents (Proposed Modification) at 470 Fourth Avenue, Austral, 490 Fourth Avenue, Austral, 494-500 Fourth Avenue, Austral, 510 Fourth Avenue, Austral, legally described as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 574738, , and corner Lot 1 and Lot 2 in DP 562807 (the Site).

2. Pursuant to the Development Application, approved on 20 June 2023, development consent DA-1383/2021 (the Consent) was granted for the staged residential subdivision of four existing allotments to create 199 Torrens title lots. The application included the demolition of existing structures, removal of vegetation, dam dewatering, site remediation, bulk earthworks and associated civil works including the construction of temporary on-site stormwater detention (OSD) basins, stormwater infrastructure, new roads, and installation of services over four stages.

3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 17 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the Development Application subject to conditions.

5. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

6. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55 of the EPA Act to modify a development consent.

7. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 4.55 of the EPA Act to modify a consent. The parties explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in a jurisdictional statement provided to the court and orally during the conciliation conference.

8. The modification application was lodged with the consent in writing from Carlo Bonvini and Pina Bonvini who are the owners of Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 574738, as required under s 98(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Reg). The balance of the Site is owned by the Applicant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19859e527a88c7ae86668f3b)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.