Background
Mark Tadros appealed Sutherland Shire Council’s refusal of DA25/0496 for 8 or 8A Holly Street, Caringbah South. The application sought demolition of the existing structures and construction of three terrace dwellings, with swimming pools, landscaping, fencing and strata subdivision.
The 798.8-square-metre site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is within 792 metres walking distance of the mapped Caringbah Town Centre. After amended materials were provided, the parties resolved the merit issues at a conciliation conference held on 10 July 2026. The Council had received five written submissions during notification, and an objector made oral submissions at the conference.
The Court’s Holding
Commissioner Espinosa upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to Annexure A conditions. Under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), the Court was required to give effect to the parties’ agreed outcome because it was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
The Court did not undertake its own merits assessment of the issues originally disputed. It accepted the parties’ agreed jurisdictional case: the project was permissible under the applicable planning controls, satisfied the low- and mid-rise housing provisions in the Housing SEPP, and complied with the relevant lot-size, height, floor-space, frontage and parking requirements. The agreed material also supported the required findings on flood risk, stormwater, contamination and sustainable-building requirements. Tadros was ordered to pay the Council $15,000 in agreed costs thrown away by the amendment of the application.
Key Takeaways
- A Class 1 appeal can be resolved through conciliation where the agreed decision is one the Court could lawfully make.
- The Housing SEPP low- and mid-rise provisions applied because the site was within 800 metres walking distance of the mapped town centre.
- The consent was conditioned, and the applicant must pay $15,000 in costs caused by amendments to the development application.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical effect of s 34 conciliation in NSW planning appeals: once the parties resolve the merits and establish that statutory prerequisites are met, the Court may formalise their agreement without independently re-litigating each planning issue.
It also shows how the Housing SEPP’s low- and mid-rise standards can displace more restrictive local lot-size, height and floor-space controls for eligible sites, while flood and stormwater impacts remain matters requiring a satisfactory evidentiary basis.