Australia, Sept. 8 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 8:

1. COMMISSIONER: The Applicant lodged a development application (DA-15/2024) with Liverpool City Council (the Council) for the demolition of existing structures, subdivision of an existing allotment into two Torrens Title Lots and the construction of two 2-storey semi-detached dwellings. The development is proposed at 80 Green Valley Road, Busby (Lot 1128 DP 224957). The development application was refused. Pursuant to s 8.3(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) the Applicant filed a request for the Council to review their determination to refuse the development application. The request for review was allocated application number RD/55/2025 (the Review Application). Pursuant to s 8.4 of the EPA Act the Council conducted a review of the determination of DA-15/2024 and confirmed the refusal of the development application. The Review Application was refused. The Applicant appeals to the Court against the Councils refusal of the Review Application pursuant to s 8.6(2) of the EPA Act.

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties which was held on 24 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference. Prior to the conciliation conference an agreement was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. This agreed decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent to the development application. A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was filed with the Court on 22 July 2025.

3. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). The purpose of this test is to determine whether any jurisdictional impediments that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the parties' agreed resolution. (see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the following reasons:

1) The development application was lodged with the consent of the owners of the land. The Applicant in these proceedings is the registered proprietor of the land: s 23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation).

2) The development application was notified in accordance with Liverpool City Council's Community Engagement Strategy 2022 between 17 December 2024 to 27 January 2025. No submissions were received during the notification period.

3) Pursuant to Ch 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) the site is located within the Georges River Catchment and is subject to the provisions of SEPP BC. In deciding whether to grant development consent, the consent authority must consider ss 6.6(1), 6.7(1), 6.8(1) and 6.9(1) in Ch 6 which require consideration of the impacts of development on land located within the Georges River Catchment, which is a "regulated catchment" as defined in Sch 6 - Dictionary to Ch 6 of the SEPP BC.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1987dee653a68696c8a20406)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.