Background
Jubilee St Pty Ltd appealed under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) after Maitland City Council refused its application to demolish a dwelling at 5 Jubilee Street, East Maitland, and construct co-living housing. The amended proposal comprised 11 single-occupancy rooms and a common room incorporating a manager’s workspace and laundry.
At a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed to amendments including revised roof and landscaping treatments, altered lighting and communal-open-space arrangements, a revised plan of management, and a noise assessment. They then filed an agreement for consent subject to conditions.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Swan granted leave to amend the development application, upheld the appeal, and granted development consent for the amended proposal subject to conditions in Annexure A. The applicant was ordered to pay the Council $8,500 in costs thrown away by the amendment within 28 days.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the agreement was a decision the Court could properly make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act. The proposal was permissible as co-living housing on the R1 General Residential site, met the relevant Housing SEPP requirements, and was otherwise satisfactory under the applicable planning instruments and conditions. The Court stressed that, in giving effect to the parties’ agreement, it did not make an evaluative merits judgment on the matters formerly in dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 planning appeal may be resolved through a s 34 conciliation agreement if the agreed outcome is one the Court could lawfully make.
- The Court approved the amended 11-room co-living project, subject to conditions addressing matters including lighting, noise, landscaping and demolition safeguards.
- The applicant was liable for $8,500 in costs caused by its amendment to the development application.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in giving effect to negotiated planning outcomes after conciliation. Its task was not to revisit every disputed planning merit, but to ensure the agreed consent was legally available and supported by the applicable planning framework.