/

/

Paul Issa v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1134 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Paul Issa v Woollahra Municipal Council

[2026] NSWLEC 1134

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2026-03-18|Before: Dickson C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2026-03-18

Before

Dickson C

Catchwords

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations and additions to existing
dwelling — conciliation conference — agreement between
the parties
— 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

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations and additions to existingdwelling — conciliation conference — agreement betweenthe parties— orders made.

Judgment

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

Medium Neutral Citation: Paul Issa v Woollahra Municipal Council [2026] NSWLEC 1134

Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 26 February 2026

Date of orders: 18 March 2026

Decision date: 18 March 2026

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Dickson C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans listed in paragraph [6] of the judgment.
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) Development Application No. DA2024/339/1 for partial demolition and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house on land known as 36 Wallaroy Road, Woollahra (Lot 10 DP9477) is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — alterations and additions to existing dwelling — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders made.

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.15, 8.7
Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), ss 23, 38 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014, cll 2.3, 2.7, 4.3, 4.4E, 4.6, 6.1, 6.9

COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the actual refusal of development application DA2024/339/1. As amended, the development application seeks consent for partial demolition and alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including a partial basement level to accommodate off street parking, storage and plant rooms. The development is proposed at 36 Wallaroy Road, Woollahra (Lot 10 DP9477).
A conciliation conference was held between the parties on 26 February 2026 pursuant to s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act). I presided over the conciliation conference, and the parties reached an agreement based on amended plans and documents. The parties' agreement is for the grant of consent to the development application, as amended, subject to conditions. This agreement meets the first condition to the exercise of power and obligation of a commissioner to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision of the parties (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act): see McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 (McMillan) at [51].
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the second condition is met, that being the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions: see McMillan at [51]. I form this state of satisfaction on the basis that:
Landowner’s consent was provided by the owner of the land at the time of lodgement of the development application as per s 23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation).
The development application was notified by the Respondent between 18 September and 3 October 2024. The Respondent received three submissions in objection to the development. Further, a resident addressed the Court at the commencement of the onsite component of the proceedings. I am satisfied that the submissions have been considered in the determination of the development application by either amendment of the application or through the imposition of conditions of consent: s 4.15(1)(d) of the EPA Act.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 (Sustainable Buildings SEPP) applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by an updated BASIX certificate for the amended plans in compliance with the Sustainable Buildings SEPP.
Section 4.6 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (SEPP RH) requires the consent authority to consider the contamination of the land when determining the development application. Council’s internal heritage referral for the development application, confirms the long-term residential use of the site since at least 1923. Further, a Geotechnical Investigation Report that accompanies the development application notes that the majority of material to be excavated will be crushed sandstone bedrock that is suitable for re-use on the site and is unlikely to be contaminated as it is virgin material (VENM). On the basis of the preceding, and the annexed conditions, I can be satisfied that the land will be suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out under the application.
Pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (SEPP BC), the site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as shown on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. Sections 6.6-6.10 of SEPP BC contain matters which the consent authority must consider before the grant of consent. In undertaking these considerations, I am assisted by the SEE, the architectural, stormwater and landscape plans which form part of the development application. The extent of development proposed under the development application is limited, being partial demolition of an existing dwelling and alterations and additions to that dwelling, inclusive of excavation. The jurisdictional requirements of SEPP BC detailed above are engaged in the current development application in a limited way given the minor nature of the scope of the works relating to an existing dwelling house. I have considered the matters at ss 6.6-6.10 of SEPP BC and none warrant the refusal of the development.
Further, in determining the development application I am satisfied that the proposal appropriately considers the matters set out at ss 6.6-6.10 of SEPP BC, which deal with mandatory water quality, aquatic ecology matters, impacts on periodic flooding that benefits wetlands and other riverine ecosystems, impacts on recreational land uses in the Sydney Harbour Catchment, and adverse environmental impacts on any adjacent or downstream local government areas. The parties agree, and I accept, that no clearing is proposed nor is consent sought under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) or the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW). There are no known wetlands or significant aquatic ecology that will be affected by the proposed development. Further, as detailed in the stormwater design, the proposed development will not result in an adverse release of pollutants or affect water quality in the locality nor alter the natural recession of water.
The site is subject to the provisions of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014) and is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Dwelling houses are a permissible use with consent in the zone (cl 2.3) and hence alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house are permissible. In determining the development application, I have considered the objectives of the zone.
Demolition is permitted with consent pursuant to cl 2.7 of LEP 2014. Partial demolition works are sought by the development application.
The maximum building height development standard under cl 4.3 of LEP 2014 is 9.5 metres. The amended development application has a maximum building height of 10.37m. Accordingly, the development application is accompanied by a written request to vary the standard. I have read the written request prepared by ASquare Planning dated 30 January 2026 in accordance with cl 4.6 of LEP 2014, I am satisfied that:

The development standard for floor space ratio (FSR) (cl 4.4E) in LEP 2014 is met by the amended development application. The Architectural Plans demonstrate that the proposed development as amended, has an FSR of 0.4931:1 which is below the FSR standard of 0.5:1.
Pursuant to cl 6.1 ‘Acid Sulfate Soils’ and the Acid Sulfate Soils Map, the site is not located within 500m of Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land (which is below 5m Australian Height Datum) and by which the water table is likely to be lowered below 1m AHD. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development does not impact on potential Acid Sulfate Soils (cl 6.1(2) of LEP 2014).
Earthworks are proposed under the DA, as amended. The development application was accompanied by a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Rapid Geo (15 July 2024) which provides recommendations for the construction of the proposed development. Compliance with those recommendations is required by the annexed conditions of consent.
In relation to required considerations at cl 6.9(3) Tree Canopy Cover in LEP 2014, the development application is accompanied by Landscape Plans (as amended) and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report. Based on the amended landscape plan prepared by Zenith Landscapes (dated 20 January 2026), I accept the agreed position of the parties that the development proposes sufficient tree planting to minimise the urban heat island effect and adequately replaces the existing tree canopy. With the assistance of the amended landscape plans and the compliance with the supporting DCP 2015 tree canopy control, I accept the agreement of the parties that cl 6.9 of LEP 2014 is satisfied.
Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015 (DCP 2015) applies to the site. The SEE accompanying the development application provides an assessment of the suitability of the proposed development against the provisions of the DCP 2015. With this and the assistance of the agreed evidence of the town planning experts, I have considered the provisions of the development control plan: s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could make 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, the parties have not raised, and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, 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.