/

/

LAR Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1071 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

LAR Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1071

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-02-17|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

2026-02-17

Before

Washington C

Catchwords

MODIFICATION APPLICATION — alterations and additions to an
existing dwelling house — 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

MODIFICATION APPLICATION — alterations and additions to anexisting dwelling house — conciliation conference —agreementbetween 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: LAR Developments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2026] NSWLEC 1071

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 February 2026

Date of orders: 17 February 2026

Decision date: 17 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Washington C

Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development consent DA22/0626 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent DA22/0626 as modified is Annexure B.

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION — alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.9
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 113
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015, s 4.15

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: LAR Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)

COMMISSIONER: These Class 1 proceedings arise as a result of the actual refusal, by Sutherland Shire Council, of the request of LAR Developments Pty Ltd to modify development consent DA22/0626 at 33 Glaisher Parade, Cronulla, Lot 6 DP 24076.
The original consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house and the construction of an in-ground swimming pool was granted on 5 July 2023.
The modification application, MA25/0070, was lodged on 14 May 2025 to authorise works undertaken and additional works proposed outside the approved consent issued.
These proceedings have been brought to the Court pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 13 February 2026. I presided over the conciliation conference.
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 modifying the consent in accordance with the modification application.
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. Accordingly, there are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the function under s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act can be exercised, which the parties identified and explained. From this I note the following points.
Pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act, I must be satisfied that the development to which the consent, as modified, is substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted. In this regard I note:
The proposed modification maintains the purpose of the original development for which development consent was granted, that being alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house and construction of an inground swimming pool at the subject site.
The overall height of the building, and the landscaped area remains the same as that which was approved, and an increase in FSR relates to the basement level that is imperceptible from the street.
Building setbacks, openings and external walls have been retained to the greatest extent possible as per the original development consent.
From this I am satisfied that in both qualitative and quantitative terms the development, as modified, will be substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted (s 4.55(2)(a)).
No concurrence or general terms of approval were granted by the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body in respect of any condition imposed on the original consent, and so no further consultation is required pursuant to s 4.55(2)(b).
The modification application was notified from 14 May to 29 May 2023 in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan. No submissions were received, but five residents addressed the Court at the initial s 34 conciliation conference, and one at the most recent conference. The parties submit, and I accept that issues raised in these submissions have been adequately considered in the assessment of this application and in the amendments made as part of this conciliation process. Of particular note is that the parties confirmed all windows to the eastern elevation will be highlight windows, and the laundry door will be changed to a highlight window by condition of consent. In addition, the comparison of the approved and modified dwelling show a building of similar bulk and scale, and equivalent height.
Having regard to the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP), from the parties’ submission and the amended application, I have considered such of the matters referred to in s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application. Further, I accept that the proposed development as modified meets the objectives of the C4 Environmental Living zone.
I note that no reasons were given by the consent authority for the grant of consent that is sought to be modified.
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions and accordingly, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
The Court notes:
Sutherland Shire Council as the relevant consent authority for the purposes of s 113 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) to the Applicant amending the modification application MA25/0070 to incorporate the following amended plans and documentation: