Apex Intelligent Design Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

JUDGMENT

1. COMMISSIONER: At 129 Alan Street, Niagara Park, Apex Intelligent Design Pty Ltd seeks development consent for the construction of a new dwelling with detached garage. A development application seeking the same was refused by Central Coast Council through its local planning panel, on 29 May 2024. Apex appeals against that decision pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [18] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
2. The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 6 February 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
3. At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties.
4. The agreement was submitted on 7 February 2025, and follows the agreement of the Council to an amendment to the development application, pursuant to cl 55(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation 2000), which continues to apply to the development application due to the savings provision in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The amendments include the provision of more detail concerning the finished floor level of the garage, the levels of the proposed driveway and turning area, and the protection of trees.
5. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of development consent subject to conditions of consent pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by a Statement of Jurisdictional Prerequisites that sets out the matters that are required to be satisfied prior to the grant of development consent, together with written submissions prepared by counsel for the applicant. I have considered the contents of the Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the written submissions, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in condition 1. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.