Background
Anvest Holdings appealed to the Land and Environment Court from Liverpool City Council’s deemed refusal of DA-435/2025. The application sought demolition of existing structures at 4, 6 and 10 Kelly Street, Austral, followed by a staged Torrens title subdivision creating 102 residential lots, roads, civil works and drainage works.
After an earlier conciliation conference did not resolve the matter, the parties reached agreement when the hearing commenced on 14 September 2026. Council also agreed to amendments to the development application and supporting plans and reports.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Washington held that the 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 therefore upheld Anvest’s appeal and granted development consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
The Court was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional requirements had been met, including owner’s consent, notification, Rural Fire Service approvals for integrated development, and applicable planning controls. It accepted that the amended proposal complied with residential lot-size and density controls, infrastructure requirements, flood and water-management requirements, contamination considerations, and biodiversity requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 deemed-refusal appeal can be resolved by a conciliated agreement where the Court is satisfied it could lawfully make the agreed decision.
- The Court approved the amended proposal for a staged 102-lot residential subdivision at Austral, subject to conditions.
- Anvest was ordered to pay Council’s costs thrown away, as agreed or assessed, under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court’s role in converting a negotiated planning outcome into binding orders after independently confirming that statutory preconditions and applicable planning controls are satisfied.
For developers and councils, it also shows that amended plans and technical material can support a consent outcome in conciliation, while costs consequences may remain for work made unnecessary by the amendments.