Australia, July 18 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 17:

1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of development application DA-2024/389/1. The development application seeks development consent for a new double garage and new vehicular crossover with landscaped roof (DA) at 16 Wunulla Road, Point Piper legally described as Lot 1, Section 4 in DP 3556 (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 development application DA-2024/389/1 in accordance with the document listed below (amended DA):

1) Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards, Request to Vary Clause 4.4E - Floor Space Ratio (FSR written request) prepared by SJB Planning dated 14 April 2025.

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 12 June 2025. I have 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. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal for the amended DA and granting development consent to the amended DA subject to conditions.

5. 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.

6. 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. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites

7. 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.

8. I am satisfied that owners consent accompanied the DA as provided in the Class 1 application. The Respondent notified the DA between 16 October 2024 to 31 October 2024. No submissions were received.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197627061bc1c49c6abc1681)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.