Background
DPG Project 56 Pty Ltd appealed North Sydney Council’s deemed refusal of DA 456/2025. The application sought demolition and construction of a nine-storey residential flat building with three basement levels, three affordable-housing units, landscaping and tree works at 16, 18 and 18A Watson Street, Neutral Bay.
The parties attended Court-convened conciliation conferences in May and June 2026. The applicant then submitted amended plans and supporting material addressing matters including solar access, privacy, façade articulation, traffic access, landscaping, deep-soil planting and tree protection. The amended proposal dedicated 15% of gross floor area to affordable housing.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Bilmon held that the parties’ agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the Court was therefore required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
The Court upheld the appeal and granted consent to the amended development subject to agreed conditions. It accepted the parties’ position that the proposal met the relevant prerequisites, including the applicable affordable-housing, height, floor-space, landscaping, design, contamination, heritage and environmental requirements. It also accepted a cl 4.6 variation to the applicable storey limitation. The applicant was ordered to pay the Council $27,832 in thrown-away costs under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- A s 34 conciliation agreement must be implemented where the Court is satisfied it could lawfully have made the agreed decision.
- The Court approved a nine-storey project containing three affordable-housing units, subject to conditions.
- The storey-control variation was accepted, while the proposal complied with the relevant affordable-housing floor-space and height provisions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how amendments made through Class 1 conciliation can resolve planning and neighbour-amenity issues and lead to consent by agreement.
It also confirms that, once the statutory preconditions are satisfied, the Court’s role under s 34(3) is to give effect to the parties’ agreed outcome rather than conduct a fresh merits assessment of discretionary considerations.