Background
Longyong Li appealed under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) from Ku-ring-gai Council’s refusal of development application eDA0636/25. The application concerned demolition of existing structures at 19 Lynbara Avenue, St Ives, construction of three attached terraces with landscaping and fences, and Torrens title subdivision into three lots.
The matter proceeded in the Court’s Class 1 jurisdiction. A conciliation conference was held on 27 July 2026, and the parties later filed a s 34(3) agreement resolving the appeal. The application had been amended, and the parties agreed that the applicant would pay the Council $6,250 in thrown-away costs caused by those amendments. Four public submissions had been received during the Council’s notification process; the Acting Commissioner also heard objectors at the site.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Peatman upheld the appeal and granted development consent, subject to the conditions in Annexure A, for the amended proposal. The consent covered demolition, three attached terraces, associated works and Torrens title subdivision at the St Ives site.
The Court held that the agreed outcome was one it could properly make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW). It accepted that the identified statutory prerequisites had been met, including relevant requirements under the applicable SEPPs, the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, and s 4.15 of the EPA Act. Because the matter was resolved by agreement, the Court said it was not required to determine, and did not determine, the development application’s merits independently.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through a s 34 conciliation agreement where the agreed decision is within the Court’s power.
- The Court granted consent for three attached terraces and Torrens title subdivision subject to detailed conditions.
- The applicant must pay the Council $6,250 in agreed costs thrown away by amendments to the development application, within 28 days.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation pathway for development appeals: once the parties establish that an agreed approval is legally available, the Court must dispose of the matter in accordance with that agreement.
It also underscores that a consent obtained through that process is not an independent merits determination by the Court, even though the Court must be satisfied that applicable jurisdictional and statutory requirements are met.