Background
Maria Pertsinidis sought approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, with associated landscaping, at 130 Kingsgrove Road, Kingsgrove. Canterbury-Bankstown Council refused the development application on 23 March 2026 after a council representative had observed works that the parties agreed were unauthorised.
On 13 May 2026, the Council issued a development control order requiring the demolition and removal of impervious hardstand and pathways at the property. Pertsinidis appealed both that order and the refusal of her development application. Before the conciliation conference scheduled for 18 September 2026, the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), and their signed agreement was provided to the Court on 14 September 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Horton found that the parties’ agreed decision was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court was satisfied that the amended development met the relevant jurisdictional requirements, including those concerning height, floor-space ratio, earthworks, stormwater drainage, essential services, embodied emissions and site suitability.
The Court upheld the development-application appeal and granted consent for the alterations and additions, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. It also upheld the appeal concerning the development control order and modified that order in accordance with Annexure B, including by reflecting the amended plans and extending the compliance date to 31 May 2027. Because the proceedings were resolved under s 34(3), the Court did not undertake a merits assessment of the issues originally in dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A court may give effect to an agreement reached before a conciliation conference when satisfied that the agreed decision is one it could properly make.
- The amended development received consent after the Court confirmed that the applicable statutory and planning prerequisites were satisfied.
- The development control order was modified, rather than set aside, and the compliance deadline was extended to 31 May 2027.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how related development-consent and enforcement appeals can be resolved together through the Land and Environment Court’s conciliation process. Even where the parties agree on an outcome, the Court must independently confirm that it has power to make the proposed orders and that relevant jurisdictional prerequisites are met.