Background
Macksville Living appealed in the Court’s Class 1 jurisdiction after the City of Sydney Council was deemed to have refused its development application for demolition and a co-living housing development at 67–69 Murray Street, Pyrmont. The application had been notified in November and December 2025, attracting four submissions.
At a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties adjourned to develop revised material. They subsequently agreed to amended plans and conditions. The amendments included revised architectural and landscape design intended to reduce building bulk and effects on neighbouring amenity.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Macken upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the amended proposal, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court held that the agreed outcome was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions and was therefore required to give effect to it under s 34(3).
The Court was satisfied that the relevant statutory and planning requirements had been addressed, including the applicable SEPPs and the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012. It accepted an 11.38% floor-space-ratio variation under cl 4.6 and found the amended proposal acceptable on matters including height, heritage setting, design excellence, rail noise, tunnel-stack emissions and vegetation. The applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in the Council’s costs thrown away by the amendment.
Key Takeaways
- A s 34 conciliation agreement must be implemented if it is an outcome the Court could properly have made.
- The Court accepted the amended co-living proposal, including its cl 4.6 floor-space-ratio variation.
- The consent followed agreement between the parties; the Court did not conduct a merits assessment of the originally disputed issues.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical effect of Class 1 conciliation: revised plans and agreed conditions can resolve a deemed-refusal appeal, but the Court must still be satisfied that the statutory preconditions for consent are met.
It also confirms that amendments made during the appeal can carry cost consequences, even where they enable an agreed planning outcome.