Australia, June 24 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 23:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is a modification application appeal filed directly to the Court pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) to DA-70/2023/1 at 588 New South Head Road, Point Piper (Lot 1 DP952343). The modification application seeks internal and external modifications including changes to accommodate services, modifications to the swimming pools, introduction of non-trafficable areas, increased privacy measures to the ground and first floors, new gym and bathroom area, conversion of north-eastern balconies to increased living areas, and other internal modifications.

2. The respondent has approved under s 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Reg) to the applicant amending DA-70/2023/2 in accordance with the documents listed below (amended application):

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196f1431228e3d22847c3ded)

3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties on 20 May 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.

4. 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 granting the modification application and modifying the development consent. Accompanying the submitted s 34 agreement, the parties have provided a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters.

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.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

6. 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 and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied. With consideration of the agreed jurisdictional note and documentation within the Class 1 Application, I am satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This is set out below.

7. I am satisfied that owners consent accompanied the modification application (s 98 of the EPA Reg).

8. I have considered the documentation within the amended application and the parties' agreed jurisdictional statement. I accept the parties' agreement that the proposed modifications to accommodate services, internal changes, changes to the swimming pool areas, changes to the rear building envelope and increased living areas are substantially the same as the original development for the reasons set out in the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by GSA Planning (SEE) and the jurisdictional statement (s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196f1431228e3d22847c3ded)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.