Australia, June 12 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 13:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal by the Goulburn Mulwaree Council of development application No. DA/0008/2324 (the DA).

2. The DA was lodged with the Respondent on 18 July 2023.

3. The DA as lodged sought development consent for four (4) unit multi dwelling (detached) housing comprising of the retention of the existing dwelling and the construction of three (3) detached units with associated five (5) lot Community Title Subdivision (Proposed Development) at 158 Nicholson Street, Goulburn, formally identified as Lot 1 of Deposited Plan 1289543 (the site).

4. The Respondent filed its Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFAC) with the Court on 26 September 2024. The Applicant filed a Statement of Facts and Contentions in Reply with the Court on 29 November 2024.

5. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 2 December 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference, which commenced with an onsite view. 4 submitters attended the on-site view, and 3 made submissions to the Court.

6. The s 34 conciliation conference was adjourned a number of times before a s 34 agreement was reached by the parties.

7. The signed s 34 agreement and Annexure A (Conditions of Consent) were filed with the Court on 5 March 2025. The amended plans (the amended DA) were filed with the Court on 6 March 2025. The s 34 agreement was supported by an agreed statement of jurisdictional prerequisites.

8. The parties advise that all contentions raised by the Respondent in the SOFAC have been resolved by the preparation of the amended plans and documents and the agreed conditions of consent.

9. In particular, the parties advise that the changes in the amended DA include:

1) New 1m wide path along the Nicholson Street frontage. The path will be constructed partially on the subject property and partially within the road reserve;

2) Revised unit floor plan design to allow bin storage for each unit to be accessible to pathway;

3) Increase width of car spaces for Units 1 to 3 to assist in vehicle manoeuvrability from the Lane;

4) Redesign of landscaping within the front setback of Units 1 to 3 and to the corner intersection of the two lanes at the rear;

5) Adjustment of the subdivision plan to facilitate greater separation between the dwelling on units 1 to 3. The lots associated with units 2 and 3 have been increased in size, whilst the lot associated with the existing dwelling has been decreased in size; and

6) Greater clarification as to driveway design and stormwater management works.

10. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

11. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the DA.

12. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties have identified and explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance have been satisfied in a written submission accompanying the s 34 agreement, and those requirements have been satisfied as follows.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196b209df371444ee7bd498a)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.