Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house, including a first floor addition, at 25A Queens Road, Connells Point. The development application was refused by the respondent on 25 November 2024. The appeal is lodged pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [9] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.

2. The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 3 July 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. The agreement was filed on 4 July 2025, and follows the Council's approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation 2021). The amendments include a reduction in overall height by 340mm (including a 230mm reduction at the northern leading edge), a shift of the first floor building footprint to the south by 1m to reduce the prominence of the upper-most level as viewed from the foreshore, the pulling back of the leading edge to reduce view impacts and building scale, changes to the colours and materials, and the provision of additional landscaping.

4. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by a Jurisdictional Statement that sets out the jurisdictional prerequisites to the exercise of the power to grant consent. I have considered the contents of the Jurisdictional Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the joint report of the town planners filed on 20 June 2025, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A and [8] below. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.

5. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This test is concerned with there being no jurisdictional constraints that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the decision that the parties' have agreed upon (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 proposed development is for the purpose of a dwelling house, which is a permissible use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the site is located, pursuant to the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021 (GRLEP).

2) The proposed development complies with the applicable development standards that apply pursuant to the GRLEP concerning maximum floor space ratio (cl 4.4A(2)) and minimum area for landscaped area or natural rock outcrop (cl 6.12(5)(b)).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197f701050b41d4bf96d388c)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.