Brown v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1092 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Brown v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1092 | Case summary | Zoe

The Development Application was lodged with the respondent on 28 March 2025.
The Development Application was notified between 1 and 17 April 2025. Fifteen submissions were received from eight properties, of which ten were considered unique submissions.
The proceedings were commenced on 19 September 2025 against the (then) deemed refusal of the Development Application, being within the appeal period prescribed by ss 8.10 and 8.11 of the EPA Act.
The Development Application was subsequently refused by the respondent on 7 October 2025.
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2)(a) of the LEC Act between the parties, which was held on 25 and 26 February 2026.
At the site view on 25 February 2026, the Court inspected the Subject Land and walked parts of Coora Road and the Coora Road right of way with the parties and their experts.
During the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is for the grant of consent to the Development Application, as amended, subject to conditions of consent. The signed agreement is supported by an agreed jurisdictional statement.
Amended plans and documents were provided to the Court on 26 February 2026 (cited at [36]) (Amended Development Application). The amendments include:
shifting the built form of the proposed dwelling house further north;
retaining Tree 2 (in addition to Tree 4);
relocating the carport from the Coora Road right of way to 12 Nottingham Place, Yowie Bay;
a new stormwater design system including installing additional drainage adjacent to the Coora Road right of way; and
increased landscaping.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is capable of approval having regard to the C4 zone objectives.
Pursuant to cl 4.3(2B) and 4.3(2C) of the SLEP (height of buildings), the Subject Land is subject to a maximum building height of 5.4m. The parties agree that the Amended Development Application complies with this standard.
Pursuant to cl 4.4 of the SLEP (floor space ratio), the Subject Land is subject to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1. The parties agree that the Amended Development Application complies with this standard.
Pursuant to cl 6.1 of the SLEP (acid sulfate soils), the parties agree that the Subject Land is mapped as “Class 5” on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application does not involve excavation greater than 5m below Australian Height Datum and that a preliminary acid sulfate soils investigation is therefore not required.
Pursuant to cl 6.2 of the SLEP (earthworks), the parties agree and I accept, that the matters listed in cl 6.2(3) have been considered having regard to the Stormwater Plans, the fact that the proposal does not contemplate any removal or importation of fill material onto the Subject Land, the excavation is agreed to be minor, and agreed conditions of consent.
Pursuant to cl 6.4 of the SLEP (stormwater management), the consent authority must be satisfied of the matters in cl 6.4(2). Having regard to the Stormwater Plans (including the additional drainage proposed to be provided adjacent to the Coora Road right of way) and agreed conditions, the parties agree, and I accept, that the matters in cl 6.4(2) are satisfied.
Pursuant to cl 6.7 of the SLEP (environmentally sensitive land – riparian land and watercourses), the consent authority must consider the matters in cl 6.7(3) and be satisfied of the matters in cl 6.7(4) in deciding whether to grant development consent. Having regard to the amendments to the proposal, including the stormwater management system proposed and the distance of the Subject Land from riparian land and watercourses, the parties agree, and I accept, that the matters in cl 6.7(3) and (4) of the SLEP have been considered and satisfied, respectively.
Pursuant to cl 6.14 of the SLEP (landscaped areas in certain residential, employment, conservation and waterway zones), development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that the minimum percentage of the site area that is to consist of landscaped area is, in the case of the Subject Land, 40% of the site area. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application complies with this standard.
Pursuant to cll 6.16 and 6.17 of the SLEP relating to urban design – general and urban design – residential accommodation, respectively, the consent authority must consider the matters set out in cll 6.16(1) and 6.17 in deciding whether to grant development consent. The parties agree, and I accept, that the Amended Development Application is capable of being approved having regard to these provisions.