Background
QAAM Property Group Pty Ltd brought a Class 1 appeal under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) against Liverpool City Council’s refusal of Development Application No. DA-298/2025. The amended application sought a two-lot Torrens title subdivision in Austral and construction of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on each resulting lot.
At a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed that consent should be granted to the amended proposal subject to conditions. The proposed lots measured 236.95 square metres and 248.982 square metres, and each dwelling included a single garage and an additional parking space.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Walsh held that the parties’ agreed decision was one the Court could lawfully make in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court found that the proposed use was permissible in the R2 low density residential zone and that each lot, although smaller than 300 square metres, met the applicable minimum and contained a sufficient building envelope for a dwelling.
The Court was also satisfied that the relevant prerequisites concerning infrastructure, potential contamination, the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, notification, and other planning considerations had been addressed. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act, the Court was therefore required to give effect to the parties’ agreement.
The appeal was upheld, and the amended development application was approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A. Because the orders implemented a conciliation agreement, the Court expressly did not undertake a merits assessment of the issues originally disputed between the parties.
Key Takeaways
- A conciliation agreement in a planning appeal may be adopted only if the Court is satisfied that the agreed decision was legally available in the proper exercise of its functions.
- The proposed lots qualified under the applicable planning control because each exceeded 225 square metres and had a sufficient building envelope for a dwelling.
- The judgment establishes that statutory and planning prerequisites were satisfied; it does not decide the original disputed issues on their merits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court’s supervisory role when resolving development appeals by agreement. Even where the applicant and council settle at conciliation, the Court must independently determine that it has power to make the proposed orders and that all jurisdictional prerequisites to development consent have been met.
For developers and councils, the case also shows the importance of documenting how an amended proposal satisfies zoning, minimum-lot, infrastructure, contamination, catchment, and procedural requirements before asking the Court to formalize a settlement.