Background
Shashanth Shankar appealed under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) after Central Coast Council was taken to have refused DA/24/2026. The application concerned demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey attached dual occupancy, site works, parking, landscaping and subdivision at 2 Raymond Terrace, Terrigal.
At a Court-arranged conciliation conference, the parties agreed on amended plans and conditions. The amendments removed a proposed boundary adjustment with 71 Terrigal Drive and changed the driveway and vehicle access, reduced bulk and scale, reconfigured the development, improved landscaping and stormwater arrangements, and added strata subdivision.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Washington upheld the appeal and granted development consent, subject to Annexure A conditions. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the Court was satisfied that the parties’ agreed outcome was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions.
The Court accepted the applicant’s clause 4.6 request to depart from the 550-square-metre minimum lot-size standard for dual occupancy: the 488.2-square-metre site still achieved the standard’s objectives, and sufficient environmental planning grounds justified the variation. It also found that the amended proposal satisfied the applicable flooding, coastal-environment, contamination, BASIX, classified-road access and acoustic requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A deemed-refusal appeal can be resolved by conciliation where the agreed result is a decision the Court could lawfully make.
- The Court approved a clause 4.6 lot-size variation for a dual occupancy on a 488.2-square-metre site.
- Amendments addressing access, bulk, landscaping, stormwater and subdivision concerns enabled consent to be granted.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical role of Class 1 conciliation in resolving planning appeals through amended proposals and negotiated conditions. It also confirms that a numerical lot-size non-compliance does not preclude consent where the planning objectives are achieved and adequate environmental planning grounds support the variation.