Background
Hadi Hariri applied for development consent to demolish existing structures and build a two-storey dwelling with a basement, in-ground pool and outbuilding at 29 Third Avenue, Condell Park. Canterbury-Bankstown Council refused DA-232/2026 on 28 April 2026.
Mr Hariri appealed under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Before a Court-facilitated conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement and filed it with the Court.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Horton upheld the appeal and granted consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court found that the agreed outcome was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions and was therefore required to give effect to it under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).
The proposed dwelling was permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and complied with the applicable height and floor-space-ratio standards. The Court also accepted that the amended material addressed excavation, stormwater, aircraft-noise, contamination, BASIX and embodied-emissions requirements.
The Commissioner stressed that, in making orders implementing the parties’ agreement, the Court did not undertake a merit assessment of the issues originally disputed between them.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through conciliation where the agreed outcome is legally available to the Court.
- The Court granted consent for the amended residential proposal, subject to conditions.
- An order giving effect to a conciliation agreement does not necessarily determine the merits of the former disputes.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s statutory role after parties settle a development appeal through conciliation: it must confirm that the agreed decision is within the Court’s powers, then give effect to it. It also shows the importance of updated plans and supporting technical material in resolving planning issues before the conference.