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

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by City of Canada Bay Council of DA2024/0121 (DA). The DA as amended seeks development consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new two storey dwelling with basement car lift, swimming pool and associated earthworks (Proposed Development), at 49 Nield Avenue, Rodd Point also known as Lot C in Deposited Plan 401510 (Site).

2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, at which I presided on 19 June 2025.

3. One objector made a prior submission on the original application. The objector was advised of the conference but did not attend. Their concerns pertained to geotechnical issues, misleading submission information, height breach, boundary fence, privacy and front setback.

4. During the conference, the parties agreed to the Applicants' amendments to the architectural plans, landscape plans, stormwater plans and associated documentation to address Councils contentions. Pursuant to s 38 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, the Respondent, City of Canada Bay Council, as the relevant consent authority, has approved the Applicant amending Development Application DA2024/0121 to rely on the documents listed below:

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198065bdb1c3d1c1f7a25411)

5. The Court notes that this list of amended plans and documents is included in the final consent conditions in Annexure A.

6. On the 19 June 2025, the parties submitted an agreement as to the terms of a decision that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the amended Development Application, subject to conditions in Annexure A.

7. 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.

8. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising power under s 4.16 of the EPA Act. In this case, there are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The signed agreement is supported by a Jurisdictional Statement from the parties and was explained to me during the conference as to how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the agreed orders at [23], as follows:

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198065bdb1c3d1c1f7a25411)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.