Background
Bruno Brancatisano appealed Canterbury-Bankstown Council’s refusal of DA-384/2026, concerning proposed secondary-dwelling development at 10 Ely Street, Revesby. The proposal included a new single-storey secondary dwelling, an extension of the existing driveway along the northern boundary, and a two-storey secondary dwelling at the rear with an attached single-space garage.
The appeal was brought in the Court’s Class 1 jurisdiction under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). At a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed that the appeal should be upheld and consent granted subject to conditions.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Espinosa held that the agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court therefore upheld the appeal and granted development consent for DA-384/2026, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
The Commissioner did not conduct a merits assessment of the issues formerly in dispute. Instead, the Court considered the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and accepted the parties’ agreed explanation that they were met, including permissibility in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, building and wall-height standards, flood and stormwater requirements, contamination considerations, and BASIX requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through a s 34 conciliation agreement where the agreed decision is legally available to the Court.
- When giving effect to such an agreement, the Court need not independently conduct a merits assessment of the original disputed issues.
- The Court granted consent for the amended plans and BASIX certificate identified in the judgment, subject to conditions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in formalising negotiated planning outcomes. Once satisfied that statutory and planning prerequisites are met, the Court must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement under s 34(3).
For applicants and consent authorities, it underscores the value of agreed jurisdictional material and compliant amended plans in resolving a development-refusal appeal through conciliation.