Australia, Aug. 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 1:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of development application 2024/0726. The development application seeks development consent for the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and alterations and additions to the existing detached dwelling including basement garage and detached studio (DA) at 38 Tillock Street Haberfield (Lot 28 Section 7 DP 7508) (site).

2. The Court notes that the Respondent, as the relevant consent authority, has approved under s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 to the Applicant amending DA/2024/0726 in accordance with the documents listed below (amended DA):

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197afd6fdff868fe4f63e2ff)

3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 16 June 2024. Further information was provided to the Court 20 June 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. I note that as part of the submitted s 34 agreement, the parties have submitted a jurisdictional statement setting out how the proposal has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements and other matters. 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

5. 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. 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, as set out below.

6. I am satisfied that owner's consent has been provided, as the Applicants are the owners of the site. The Respondent notified the DA between 5 September and 19 September 2024. Two submissions objecting to the development were received.

7. At the commencement of the proceedings, two objectors expressed their concerns orally and provided a further written submission. The Court and parties were assisted by viewing some of the concerns raised from the objectors' property.

8. As the parties have entered into an agreement, the Court's role is limited to ensuring that there is jurisdiction / power to grant consent, and not the merits of the issues raised (Al Maha Pty Ltd v Huajun Investments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 245 at [217]). In reaching agreement, the parties have advised the Court that they considered the concerns raised in the written and oral objections.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197afd6fdff868fe4f63e2ff)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.