Background
George Mourad brought a Class 1 appeal under s 8.18 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) against a development control order issued by Inner West Council concerning 23 Renwick Street, Leichhardt. The two-storey building occupies an approximately 282-square-metre lot.
The Council’s recorded position was that the premises had approval for a mixed-use building comprising a ground-floor showroom and office and first-floor residential accommodation, and that the building did not satisfy applicable fire-safety requirements concerning emergency lighting, exit signs, smoke alarms and automatic detection, portable extinguishers, and the stairway. After issuing a notice of intention and receiving no representations, the Council made a fire-safety order on 15 May 2026 requiring specified measures.
Mourad commenced the appeal on 11 June 2026. At a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties agreed to modify both the required fire-safety works and the compliance period, and later submitted a signed agreement and an agreed jurisdictional statement.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Targett upheld the appeal and modified the Council’s development control order under s 8.18(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in accordance with the parties’ agreed order in Annexure A. The Court found that it had statutory power to modify the order and that the agreed modified order was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions.
The modified order qualified as a Fire Safety Order under Item 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 because it required the owner to undertake specified measures directed to adequate fire safety, including preventing, suppressing, or limiting the spread of fire and promoting occupants’ safety. Because the parties’ agreement satisfied the statutory test, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with it.
The Court expressly made no merits assessment of the issues originally disputed. It merely noted the parties’ continuing, opposing positions: Mourad maintained a right to use the property as a residence, while the Council maintained that the 1999 consent for the described mixed use had been activated and remained effective.
Key Takeaways
- On an appeal against a development control order, s 8.18(4) gives the Court broad powers that include modifying the order.
- A settlement reached through a s 34 conciliation conference may be embodied in court orders when the agreed decision is one the Court could properly make.
- The judgment did not decide the disputed merits or establish either party’s position concerning the premises’ lawful use.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how New South Wales development-control appeals involving fire-safety requirements can be resolved through court-supervised conciliation. Even where the parties agree, the Court must confirm that the proposed disposition falls within its statutory powers and that the modified order satisfies the applicable legislative criteria.
It also underscores the distinction between recording litigants’ positions and determining disputed facts or legal rights. The Court’s notation of Mourad’s asserted residential-use right and the Council’s view of the 1999 consent did not resolve those issues.