Australia, June 20 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 19:

1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court's jurisdiction, relate to an appeal pursuant to subs 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the Respondent's deemed refusal of development application DA/2024/0422 (DA). The DA seeks consent for identified alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling, including the demolition of the existing garage, the construction of a new garage with storage above, landscaping and associated works at 42 Stafford Street Stanmore, legally described as Lot 1 in DP 1033759 (site).

Conciliation and agreement between the parties

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under subs 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 8 May 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

3. Prior to the conciliation conference, the parties had come to an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. According to the parties, all contentions have been resolved by way of amended plans and agreed conditions of consent. This decision of the parties would have the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the DA subject to these amended plans and conditions.

4. Under subs 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.

Jurisdiction

5. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the consent authority function, under s 4.16 of the EPA Act, to grant consent to the development application. The point of consideration here is whether there are any jurisdictional constraints to the exercise of the function to grant development consent in accordance with the parties' agreement (McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [65]). Ultimately, I find that there are none. However, there are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified certain jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and how they have been or could be satisfied in a jurisdictional statement, provided to the Court on 1 May 2025 and updated on 8 May 2025. In regard to jurisdiction and having regard to this statement, I find as follows.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (RH SEPP)

6. Pursuant to subs 4.6(1), the consent authority must not grant consent to development unless it has considered whether the subject land is contaminated and, subject to its status of contamination, is satisfied that the land is or will be made to be suitable for the development. I am advised by the parties that the Respondent has considered whether the site is contaminated and, on account of the site being historically used for residential purposes with no known history of potentially contaminating uses and events, is satisfied that no further investigation of the site is warranted. On this advice, I am satisfied that the requirements of RH SEPP are met.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity & Conservation) 2021

7. Chapter 6 applies as the development is within Sydney Harbour Catchment. The parties advise, and reference background documentation, that there has been due consideration of the matters relating to water quality and quantity, aquatic ecology, flooding and recreation and public access (respectively subss 6.6(1), 6.7(1), 6.8(1) and 6.9(1)) and that the related applicable findings of satisfaction can be made with respect to subss 6.6(2), 6.7(2), 6.8(2) and 6.9(2). I accept the parties' advice and make the applicable findings of satisfaction.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (TI SEPP)

8. Section 2.48 requires the consent authority to give written notice to the electricity supply authority and that comments be considered. The parties advise that this has occurred and that requirements of Ausgrid are adopted in agreed consent conditions.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196cbd970b2d110f8d3ed17e)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.