/

/

Bonanno v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1903 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Bonanno v Liverpool City Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1903

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2025-12-19|Before: Gray C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2025-12-19

Before

Gray C

Catchwords

APPEAL – development application – use of existing premises for
rural industry – conciliation conference –
agreement reached –
orders made

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English brief of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

APPEAL – development application – use of existing premises forrural industry – conciliation conference –agreement reached –orders made

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Bonanno v Liverpool City Council [2025] NSWLEC 1903

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 13 October 2025

Date of orders: 19 December 2025

Decision date: 19 December 2025

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Gray C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development application DA 154/2025, as amended, for the use of the existing machinery shed and unauthorised building as a rural industry and ancillary office and associated stormwater works, (with the rural industry use involving the regular servicing and repairing of trucks and machinery used for the purpose of rural enterprise as a rural industry and ancillary office), is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A.

Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – use of existing premises for rural industry – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 34
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 37, 38
Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Pt 6.2, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, s 2.119

COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application for use of an existing premises at 760 Bringelly Road, Rossmore, for a rural industry. The development application was lodged with the respondent on 4 April 2025. Following the expiry of the period after which a development application is deemed to be refused, the applicant lodged an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (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 [10] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 13 October 2025, and continued by Online Court. I presided over the conciliation conference.
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.
The final agreement was filed on 16 December 2025, following the Council’s approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW). The amended development application seeks consent for the use of the existing buildings as a rural industry, with works proposed for stormwater management and to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia.
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 Jurisdictional Statement. I have considered the contents of the Jurisdictional Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, and the documents that are referred to in condition 2. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision to grant development consent to the amended application subject to conditions of consent is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. This test is concerned with there being no jurisdictional constraints that preclude the making of orders in accordance with the decision that the parties’ have agreed upon (see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [4], [51]). I formed this state of satisfaction as each of the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties is met, for the following reasons:
The proposed use is for the purpose of rural industry, which is a permissible use in the RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone in which the site is located, pursuant to the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008 (LLEP).
The proposed development does not alter the height or floor space ratio of the buildings on the site, such that there is no breach of any development standard concerning the same.
Section 4.14 of the EPA Act applies to the site, as it is mapped as bush fire prone land. Based on the Bush Fire Hazard Assessment, dated 18 March 2025, prepared by Blackash Bushfire Consulting, I am satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2019, as required by s 4.14(1)(a).
Consideration has been given as to whether the subject site is contaminated as required by s 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021. Based on the Detailed Site Investigation report dated 3 October 2025, the site is suitable for the continued use of the land for rural industry.
The site is in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment, and therefore Ch 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) applies. Based on the location of the site, the letter by Apex Civil Engineers dated 14 November 2025, and the conditions of consent in Annexure A, I have considered the matters in ss 6.6(1) and 6.7(1) of the SEPP BC, and I am satisfied of the matters in ss 6.6(2) and 6.7(2) of the SEPP BC. As the site is not located in an area that affects public access to waterbodies, I am satisfied of the matters in s 6.9(2) of the SEPP BC.
The site has frontage to Bringelly Road, which is a classified road, and s 2.119 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (SEPP TI) applies. In accordance with s 2.119, vehicular access can only be practicably obtained from Bringelly Road and, based on the letter by McLaren Traffic Engineering dated 15 October 2025, I am satisfied that the safety, efficiency, and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of the vehicular access or the emissions from the development. Consistent with the requirements of s 2.119(2)(c), the proposed development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions.
The development application was notified from 7 to 28 April 2025, and no written submissions were received.
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could have made in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3)(a) of the LEC Act requires me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”. The LEC Act also requires me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)).
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any evaluative judgment on the matters that were originally in dispute between the parties, or any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.
The Court notes:
The Respondent Liverpool City Council, as the relevant consent authority, approves under s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) the amendment of development application DA 154/2025 by the Applicant, in accordance with the following documents