Background
Segco sought approval for a development at 354-364 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Clifton. The proposal involved demolition, consolidation and subdivision into two Torrens title lots, five dwellings and their strata subdivision on one lot, and a dwelling house and swimming pool on the other. It also included a retaining wall in the road reserve and seven on-site sewage management systems.
After the application was deemed refused, Segco brought a Class 1 appeal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Following amendments to matters including wastewater arrangements, townhouse design, setbacks, tree retention and road-access works, the parties reached agreement at a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Gray upheld the appeal and granted development consent to the amended proposal subject to the conditions in Annexure A. The Court also granted Local Government Act approvals for one on-site wastewater management system serving the proposed dwelling-house lot and six systems serving the multi-dwelling lot.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could properly make because the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites had been met, including requirements concerning planning controls, biodiversity, coastal impacts, designated and integrated development, infrastructure and agency approvals. Because the orders implemented a conciliation agreement, the Court did not determine the original disputed issues or independently assess the proposal’s discretionary merits under s 4.15.
The Court also ordered Segco to pay Wollongong City Council costs thrown away arising from leave to file the amended application. Together with separate costs orders made on 19 May and 24 July 2026, the agreed total was $66,000, payable in two instalments of $33,000.
Key Takeaways
- A court may give effect to a s 34 conciliation agreement when satisfied that no jurisdictional constraint prevents the agreed orders.
- The amended development received consent subject to conditions, along with separate approval for all seven on-site wastewater management systems.
- The judgment records jurisdictional compliance but expressly makes no evaluative determination of the issues originally disputed between the parties.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role when resolving a planning appeal through conciliation: it must verify that the agreed outcome is legally available, but it need not adjudicate the underlying merits disputes. It also shows how development consent, wastewater approvals, integrated-development requirements and a voluntary planning agreement can be resolved within one coordinated outcome.