Background
Group Architects Pty Ltd appealed Willoughby City Council’s refusal of Development Application DA-2024/296 to demolish a decommissioned substation building and construct a storage premises at 157 Lower Gibbes Street, Chatswood. The site is zoned E4 General Industrial under the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012, and storage premises are permitted with consent in that zone.
Following a conciliation conference held on 15 May 2026 pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties reached an in-principle agreement based on proposed amendments to the development application. The conciliation was adjourned to allow the applicant to prepare amended plans and for Council to review revised conditions of consent. The parties filed their agreed conditions on 29 June 2026.
One adjoining property owner made submissions during the public notification period and at the conciliation conference. The parties agreed that the amended plans and proposed conditions satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised and that no further amendments or refusal was warranted.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Swan upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended development application, subject to conditions set out in Annexure A. The court confirmed that all jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent had been satisfied. The site is zoned E4 General Industrial and the proposal’s floor space ratio (0.96:1) complies with the mapped standard (1:1). The proposal meets acid sulfate soil management requirements, and excavation works are addressed through conditions and supporting reports.
The court accepted that stormwater management provisions are satisfied, noting that the amended proposal deleted the basement level to reduce impacts on overland flows. Land contamination from the site’s prior use in electrical manufacturing was addressed through a Preliminary Site Investigation, Remedial Action Plan, and conditions requiring a validation report and clearance certificate before development proceeds. The court confirmed that biodiversity and conservation considerations under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 were satisfactory.
The court noted that, as the parties had reached agreement on a decision the court could properly make, it was not required to make any evaluative judgment on matters originally in dispute or assess the discretionary matters under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of $8,000 for costs thrown away due to the amendments.
Key Takeaways
- The conciliation conference process under the Land and Environment Court Act can effectively resolve development disputes when both parties engage constructively and reach agreement.
- A court may dispose of development proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreed decision if the decision is one the court could properly make in the exercise of its functions.
- Environmental and planning concerns such as land contamination, stormwater impacts, and biodiversity considerations can often be managed through conditions of consent rather than outright refusal of development.
- Developers may successfully appeal a council’s refusal by amending plans to address the council’s concerns and proposing appropriate conditions.
Why It Matters
This decision demonstrates the practical effectiveness of the conciliation process in resolving development disputes before trial. It illustrates how an applicant may transform a refusal into approval through genuine engagement with the consent authority, willingness to revise plans, and agreement on enforceable conditions. For developers and local councils, it underscores that negotiated settlements can be more efficient than contested litigation and can produce tailored outcomes that address legitimate planning and environmental concerns.
The case also reflects the modern planning approach of managing environmental risks through conditions and technical requirements rather than categorical refusals. The court’s endorsement of the agreed conditions—including remediation plans, validation reporting, and stormwater management—shows how technical expertise and careful conditioning can resolve constraints on development in industrial zones, even where land contamination or other environmental factors are present.