Background
Phuong La Ha Tran appealed Canterbury Bankstown Council’s refusal of development application DA-31/2026 to the Land and Environment Court. The application sought approval to use an existing garage attached to a secondary dwelling and construct a privacy screen on the southern boundary at 50 Martin Street, Roselands. The applicant owned the property and had provided owner’s consent with the application.
The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Canterbury Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2023, where secondary dwellings are permissible with consent. Council notified the application and received objections from neighboring properties.
The Court’s Holding
Following a conciliation conference on 10 July 2026, the parties reached agreement on the terms of a court decision. Commissioner Porter upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended application (Revision M) subject to conditions. The amendments included privacy screening along the southern fence and were made in response to community objections.
The court found all jurisdictional prerequisites satisfied. As an ancillary structure to a secondary dwelling, the proposal fell within State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, with no applicable standards enlivened. Stormwater management and essential services requirements under the Local Environmental Plan were met. The court accepted that amendments were minor and responsive to objections, requiring no re-notification of neighbors.
In disposing of the agreed outcome, the court verified there were no jurisdictional constraints on granting consent but made no merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute, as required under section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- Conciliation conferences can efficiently resolve development appeals when parties negotiate mutually acceptable terms, avoiding costly contested hearings
- Minor amendments responding to community concerns may satisfy objections without requiring re-notification to neighbors
- When parties agree to a development decision, the court’s role is limited to jurisdictional review rather than substantive merits assessment
- Secondary dwelling ancillary structures on appropriately zoned residential land can be approved where statutory planning requirements are satisfied
Why It Matters
This decision demonstrates the practical efficiency of conciliation procedures under NSW planning law. Rather than proceeding to contested hearing, the parties used court-facilitated conciliation to reach agreement, illustrating how constructive engagement and targeted amendments can resolve disputes faster than full adjudication. For applicants and councils, it shows the value of willingness to modify proposals in response to reasonable concerns.
The case also clarifies that when parties agree to a development decision in the Land and Environment Court, the court’s evaluative function is confined to verifying jurisdictional prerequisites—the availability of power to grant consent—rather than weighing the substantive merits. This procedural efficiency allows courts to disposition appeals through agreement while maintaining necessary legal safeguards.