Ji Family Holdings — Court approved agreed driveway-layout changes to a subdivision consent

Case
Ji Family Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council
Court
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Australia)
Judge
S O’Neill (of New South Wales, 2012)
Date Decided
1 September 2026
Citation
[2026] NSWLEC 1567
Topics
development consent, modification application, subdivision, conciliation

Background

Ji Family Holdings Pty Ltd held a development consent, granted by the Court in February 2025, for a two-lot subdivision and demolition of existing structures at 21–23 Willis Street, Kingsford. It applied under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) to modify that consent.

The modification application concerned changes to the driveway layout, including driveway crossover specifications. The parties participated in a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) on 17 August 2026 and reached agreement on the outcome.

The Court’s Holding

Commissioner O’Neill upheld the appeal and modified Development Consent No DA/321/2024 in accordance with the agreed modification application and consolidated conditions.

The Court was satisfied that the agreed outcome was one it could properly make. In particular, the modified development was substantially the same as the originally approved development for the purposes of s 4.55(2)(a): the changes were minor, the two-lot subdivision retained the same layout, and the driveway crossover had already been contemplated by a condition of the original consent.

Key Takeaways

  • A consent modification may be approved where the amended development remains substantially the same as the approved development.
  • Minor driveway-layout and crossover changes did not alter the essential character of this two-lot subdivision.
  • Where parties reach an acceptable agreement in a s 34 conciliation conference, the Court must give effect to it if it is within the Court’s lawful powers.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the practical operation of NSW’s development-consent modification regime. It confirms that relatively confined design changes can be dealt with through s 4.55(2), rather than requiring a new development application, when the approved development’s substance remains unchanged.

It also shows the role of conciliation in Class 1 proceedings: an agreed planning outcome can be formalised by the Court once the statutory preconditions are satisfied.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top