/

/

Inman v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1047 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Inman v Inner West Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1047

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-02-10|Before: Washington C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-02-10

Before

Washington C

Catchwords

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations and additions to dwelling house
— heritage conservation area — conciliation
conference —
agreement between the parties — orders

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

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations and additions to dwelling house— heritage conservation area — conciliationconference —agreement between the parties — orders

Judgment

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

Medium Neutral Citation: Inman v Inner West Council [2026] NSWLEC 1047

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 January 2026

Date of orders: 10 February 2026

Decision date: 10 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Washington C

Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The applicant’s written request under cl 4.6 of the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (IWLEP), dated 14 January 2026, seeking to vary the Landscaped Area Development Standard set out in cl 4.3C of the IWLEP, is upheld.
(3) The applicant’s written request under cl 4.6 of the IWLEP, dated 14 January 2026, seeking to vary the Site Coverage Development Standard set out in cl 4.3C of the IWLEP, is upheld.
(4) The applicant’s written request under cl 4.6 of the IWLEP, dated 14 January 2026, seeking to vary the Floor Space Ratio Development Standard set out in cl 4.4 of the IWLEP, is upheld.
(5) Development Application No. DA/2024/0427 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, including partial demolition of existing structures, ground floor and first floor addition, and construction of a rear garage is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

COMMISSIONER: These Class 1 proceedings arise from the imposition of a deferred commencement condition on the development consent of application DA/2024/0427, made to Inner West Council. This application seeks consent for alterations and additions to a dwelling house located at 24 Breillat Street, Annandale, legally known as Lot C DP 34200. The works include the excavation and demolition of a sandstone wall at the rear of the site to construct a single-car garage and stair access to the existing dwelling, as well as the extension and restoration of the sandstone wall with timber paling fence above. Proposed works to the dwelling include the demolition of the existing kitchen and external bathroom, laundry and water closet and construction of a two-storey addition to the rear of the dwelling.
On 8 October 2024 the application was determined by way of consent, subject to conditions. These conditions included a deferred commencement condition, which required the submission of amended plans demonstrating several revisions to the works. It is this deferred commencement condition that is the subject of this appeal, which has been brought to the Court pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).
An initial conciliation conference was held in August 2025, which was unsuccessful. A hearing was subsequently arranged by the Court, however prior to that hearing the parties resolved the issues in dispute between them and requested the Court arrange a further conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act). This was held on 29 January 2026.
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to acceptable terms of a decision in the proceedings. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.
As part of this agreement, pursuant to s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation), the Council agreed to the applicant amending the development application to adequately address their contentions.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if that decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, which the parties identified and explained. From this I note the following points.

The development application was made with the written consent of the owner of the land, noting that any ancillary works on adjacent land are expressly not approved under this application, as clarified by the agreed conditions of consent.
The application was adequately notified from 13 June to 27 June 2024, during which time no submissions were received.
Section 4.6 of the State Environment Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP RH) requires the consent authority to consider whether the site is contaminated, and if so, whether it will be suitable for the intended use. Based on the parties’ submissions and the information contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects by Raven Fisher Architects, dated 23 April 2024, I accept that the land has historically been used for residential purposes, is not likely to be contaminated and is suitable for the ongoing residential use.
The site is located within the Sydney Harbour Water Catchment and, accordingly, Ch 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC) applies. From the amended application and the parties’ submission, I accept that the requirements of Ch 6 of the SEPP BC relating to water quality and quantity (s 6.6) and aquatic ecology (s 6.7), are met by the proposed development. I further accept that the proposed development is not on flood liable land (s 6.8), does not affect public access to and from natural waterbodies (s 6.9), and is not likely to have any adverse environmental impact on any adjacent local government areas (s 6.10).
Pursuant to s 27 of the EPA Regulation, a BASIX certificate, that relates to the development as amended, accompanies the application.
The subject site is zoned R1 General Residential under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022 (IWLEP), within which development for the purposes of a dwelling house is permissible with consent. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of this zone.
IWLEP cl 4.3C(3)(a) sets a minimum landscaped area requirement of 15% of the site area, the proposed development does not comply with this standard, with a landscaped area of 5.72%. Pursuant to IWLEP cl 4.6, the applicant has submitted a request to vary the landscaped area development standard, dated 14 January 2026. From this written request, I am satisfied that compliance with this development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances because the proposed development complies with the relevant objectives of the landscaped areas standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance, noting that landscaped areas are limited in the residential dwellings in the vicinity. Further, the applicants have demonstrated there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify breaching the development standard because: the proposed landscaped area improves on the existing situation, including the provision of a canopy tree; the landscape provision is consistent with the character of the area and of the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and; the proposal allows for the retention of an existing contributory dwelling.
IWLEP cl 4.3C(3)(b) then sets a maximum site coverage of 60% of the site area, with which the proposed development also does not comply, with a site coverage of 68.41%. Pursuant to IWLEP cl 4.6, the applicant has submitted a request to vary the landscaped area development standard, dated 14 January 2026. From this written request, I am satisfied that compliance with this development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances because the proposed development complies with the relevant objectives of the site coverage standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance. The applicants have then demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify breaching the development standard because the additional site coverage occurs through the replacement of an external concrete slab with an excavated garage. External open space is still provided above this garage, resulting in a compliant quantity of private open space.
Finally, IWLEP cl 4.4 sets a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1. The proposed development has an FSR of 1.14:1, and therefore does not comply with this development standard. Pursuant to IWLEP cl 4.6, the applicant has submitted a request to vary the landscaped area development standard, dated 14 January 2026. From this written request, I am satisfied that compliance with this development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in these circumstances because the proposed development complies with the relevant objectives of the FSR standard, notwithstanding the non-compliance. The applicants have again demonstrated there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify breaching the development standard because: the proposed development is consistent with the form and scope of development in the HCA and locality, and the applicable development controls. Much of the additional floor space is within the garage, which is below ground level and will not add to the overall perception of bulk and scale. Finally, the additional FSR will not result in any unacceptable amenity impacts.
The existing dwelling is identified as “contributory” to the Annandale Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). From the parties’ submission and the Statement of Heritage impact by Raven Fisher Architects dated 23 April 2024, I accept that the impact of the development on the heritage significance of the HCA is acceptable.
The site is identified as Class 5 on the Acid Sulfate Soils map pursuant to IWLEP cl 6.1, but is not adjacent to, nor within 500m of any Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land. The proposed works are also not likely to lower the watertable below 1m Australian Height Datum, and therefore there are no further requirements under this clause.
IWLEP cl 6.2 identified matters for consideration relating to earthworks. From the parties’ submission, the structural engineering drawings by NiTmA Consulting, and the Geotechnical Report by NiTmA Consulting dated 21 May 2024, I accept that these matters have been considered, and the proposed earthworks are acceptable.
From the parties’ submission, the amended architectural plans by Raven Fisher Architects, and the drainage plans by NiTmA Consulting dated 25 March 2024, I accept that the proposed development meets the stormwater management requirements of IWLEP cl 6.3.
IWLEP cl 6.8 lists matters for consideration for development in areas subject to aircraft noise. From the parties’ submission, the Aircraft Noise Assessment by PKA Consulting dated 26 March 2024 and the relevant conditions of consent, I accept that these matters have been considered and the impact of aircraft noise on this development will be acceptable.