Background
Glenn Stephen Simpson and Danielle Yvonne Simpson appealed under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) from conditions imposed by Sutherland Shire Council on DA25/0533. The development concerned the formalised use of an existing inclinator and construction of two landing stations on the eastern side of their dwelling at 22 Goldfinch Place, Grays Point, providing step-free access down a steep waterfront site.
The appeal concerned particular conditions of Council’s consent, rather than whether the development should proceed at all. At a mandatory conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the parties reached agreement on amended plans and conditions, including revised operational and acoustic controls for the inclinator.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Kullen upheld the appeal and granted development consent for the existing inclinator use and two new landing stations, subject to the agreed conditions in Annexure A.
The Court was satisfied that the statutory jurisdictional prerequisites were met, including owner’s consent for the relevant Crown land, planning and environmental requirements, and the matters for consideration under s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It held that the agreed outcome was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions and was therefore required by s 34(3) to give effect to it. The Commissioner did not make a merits assessment of the issues originally disputed.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 development appeal may be resolved through a s 34 conciliation agreement where the agreed decision is lawfully available to the Court.
- The consent permits the existing waterfront inclinator and two minor landing stations, subject to amended plans and conditions.
- The inclinator may generally operate only between 5.30 am and 11.00 pm, must meet a 60 dB(A) LAmax limit at adjoining premises, and must be maintained and kept clear of vegetation that causes noise.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Land and Environment Court’s role in implementing negotiated development outcomes after verifying statutory prerequisites, rather than independently re-deciding the merits of every issue resolved by the parties.
For waterfront and environmentally sensitive sites, the case also shows how minor access works may be approved with conditions addressing acoustic impacts, coastal considerations, landscaping, and adjoining-owner concerns.