Goodman v Sutherland Shire Council [2025] NSWLEC 1502 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Goodman v Sutherland Shire Council [2025] NSWLEC 1502 | Case summary | Zoe

At the conciliation, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. 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.
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 that sets out the matters that the Court must consider prior to the grant of development consent. I have considered the contents of the Jurisdictional Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, the joint reports and the documents that are referred to in Condition 6 of Annexure A. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
The Council, as the consent authority, consented to the amendment of the application pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Reg). The plans and documents comprising the amended application were submitted to the Court on 18 June 2025 and are listed under Condition 6 of the conditions of consent at Annexure A. Changes made to the proposal to address the contentions include:
The applicant has agreed to a condition to ensure areas of the site cannot be used as a secondary dwelling
Additional information in the form of section AA to the plans, sun eye diagrams and a revised height blanket diagram was provided to assist in the assessment of the height of the proposal, together with an updated cl 4.6 submission
Updated photomontages, were provided together with an updated cl 4.6 submission in respect of cl 6.9 of the SSLEP, and
An amended landscape plan has been provided which provides improved plantings, an updated landscape calculation and the retention of the Norfolk Island Pine previously proposed to be removed.
Further, the previously proposed double guest garage was reduced to a single garage, an existing retaining wall was retained to protect the significant Norfolk Island Pine, which is to be retained and privacy treatments were included to protect neighbouring amenity.

The development is for the purposes of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling which is permissible in the C4 Environmental Living zone in which the site is located pursuant to Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP).
The development has regard to the objectives of the C4 Environmental Living zone as required by cl 2.3.
The proposal seeks consent to the proposed demolition in accordance with cl 2.7.
Under cl 4.3 a maximum height of 8.5m applies to the subject land notwithstanding that the existing building has a maximum height of 10.3m. The proposed development has a maximum height of 11.145m and therefore does not comply with the development standard. A variation request in accordance with cl 4.6 of SSLEP has therefore been submitted seeking to vary the building height development standard. I am satisfied that consent should be granted notwithstanding the contravention of the building height development standard having regard to the circumstances of the case. In particular I am satisfied that:
The written request, dated 28 May 2025 prepared by Planning Ingenuity, lodged pursuant to cl 4.6 of the SSLEP adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach in the building height development standard.
The written request demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given that the proposal achieves the objectives of the standard notwithstanding the non-compliance and that it will not result in any adverse impacts.
Based on the content of the written request, the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the zone and of the development standard.
The proposed development complies with the applicable floor space ratio development standard set out in cl 4.4 of SSLEP which provides for a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 (0.37:1 proposed).
The site is mapped as having Class 5 Acid Sulfate Soils however no excavation is proposed beyond the existing developed areas as part of the proposed works. Accordingly, no further assessment is required in accordance with cl 6.1 of SSLEP and an acid sulfate soils management plan is not required.
I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with the relevant requirements of cl 6.2 in respect of earthworks having regard to the parties’ agreement, recommended conditions of consent and the assessment contained in the SEE prepared by Planning Ingenuity (25 July 2024).
I am further satisfied that the proposal complies with the requirements of cl 6.4 as it proposes to connect to the existing stormwater drainage system on site as outlined in the SEE prepared by Planning Ingenuity (25 July 2024).
The site is identified as environmentally sensitive land – riparian land and watercourses for the purpose of cl 6.7. On the basis of the assessment contained in the SEE prepared by Planning Ingenuity (25 July 2024), I am satisfied that the relevant matters contained therein have been considered and that, subject to recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is acceptable.
Clause 6.9 of SSLEP relates to Limited development on the foreshore area and limits development in the foreshore area. The proposed development does not comply with the development standard as it proposes a slight encroachment into the foreshore area. Accordingly, a variation request in accordance with cl 4.6 of SSLEP has been submitted seeking to vary the foreshore area development standard. I am satisfied that consent should be granted notwithstanding the contravention of the foreshore area development standard having regard to the circumstances of the case. In particular I am satisfied that:
The written request, dated 13 June 2025 prepared by Planning Ingenuity, lodged pursuant to cl 4.6 of the SSLEP adequately establishes sufficient environmental planning grounds that justify the breach in the foreshore area development standard.
The written request demonstrates that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given that the proposal achieves the objectives of the standard notwithstanding the non-compliance and that it will not result in any adverse impacts.
Based on the content of the written request, the proposal is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the zone and of the development standard.
A minimum 40% landscape area requirement applies to the site in accordance with cl 6.14. The existing landscape area on site will not be affected by the proposed development and does not currently comply with the SSLEP requirement. Clause 6.14 (4A and 4B) permits an existing non-compliance to continue and development consent to be granted if the consent authority is satisfied of the matters in 6.14(4A)(b). I am satisfied of these matters on the basis of the assessment in the SEE (Planning Ingenuity, 25 July 2024).
Based on the plans, the parties’ agreement and the assessment contained in the SEE (Planning Ingenuity, 25 July 2024), I am satisfied that the proposal complies with the relevant requirements of cl 6.16 ‘Urban design – general’ and cl 6.17 ‘Urban design – residential accommodation’ as the proposed alterations and additions are well integrated with the existing building, are compatible with the surrounding character and will provide a high level of residential amenity to the dwelling occupants. Further the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties is minimal subject to recommended conditions of consent.