Background
Mark Joseph Prior appealed Sutherland Shire Council’s refusal of DA25/0564 for works at 48 Grandview Parade, Caringbah South. The amended proposal involved extending an existing jetty, replacing its timber planks with mesh decking, and installing a ramp, pontoon and piles to create a berthing area.
The principal issue was the potential effect on the Posidonia australis complex seagrass meadow in Burraneer Bay, an endangered ecological community listed under Commonwealth environmental law. The parties attended a conciliation conference under the Land and Environment Court Act and reached agreement on a revised proposal and conditions.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Entwisle upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended development application, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court held that the agreed outcome was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions and that no jurisdictional impediment prevented the orders.
The revised design included a 16.6-metre, 1.5-metre-wide jetty with mesh decking intended to increase light penetration. The Court accepted that the works would avoid or minimise significant adverse effects on the aquatic environment and marine vegetation, including because the new pier arrangement would remain within the footprint of the existing ramp. Conditions required an updated marine habitat survey and consultation with NSW Fisheries if previously unidentified marine vegetation were found.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 appeal can be resolved by conciliation where the Court is satisfied the agreed result is within its power and no jurisdictional barrier exists.
- Revised waterfront-structure design and conditions can address concerns about impacts on endangered Posidonia seagrass.
- The Court did not conduct a merits hearing because the parties reached an in-principle agreement at conciliation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process in action: a refused development application was resolved through an amended design and environmental safeguards rather than a contested merits hearing.
For waterfront development, it also shows the importance of designing works to reduce seabed and shading impacts and of using conditions to manage uncertain or emerging marine-vegetation impacts.