Background
SQG 85 Windsor Road Pty Ltd appealed the Hills Shire Council’s refusal of DA 681/2025/ZE for a small lot housing development at 85 Windsor Road, Norwest. The amended proposal involved demolition, tree removal, roads and staged subdivision to create 15 residential lots and dwelling houses, seven community-title residential lots and dwelling houses, a community association lot and a road-widening lot.
The proceedings were brought under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). After an earlier unsuccessful conciliation conference and the start of a hearing, the parties agreed on amended plans and requested a further conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Washington upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to the agreed conditions in Annexure A. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement because it was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
The Court accepted that the amended application met the relevant statutory prerequisites and planning controls. This included biodiversity assessment and offsetting for vegetation-clearing impacts, remediation conditions to make the contaminated site suitable, compliance with applicable Sydney Harbour Catchment requirements, and compliance with the relevant subdivision, lot-size, height, infrastructure, heritage and earthworks controls under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 appeal may be resolved by an agreed outcome where the Court is satisfied it could lawfully make that decision.
- Conditions requiring remediation and biodiversity measures supported approval of a development involving contamination and native-vegetation clearing.
- The applicant must pay the Council’s costs thrown away by amendment of the development application, in an agreed or assessed sum.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process in action: a refusal appeal can culminate in consent where amended plans resolve the parties’ planning contentions and the Court independently confirms that the agreed result is within power.
It also shows that environmental and site-contamination constraints need not preclude housing subdivision where the evidence and enforceable consent conditions demonstrate avoidance, mitigation, offsetting and remediation.