Qin v Hunter's Hill Council

Judgment

1. COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns a development application for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a 2-storey dwelling house with basement garage at 11 William Street, Henley. The development application was refused by the respondent on 7 May 2024. The present proceedings are an appeal against that decision, pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [9] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
2. The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 6 March 2025, and continued on 7 March 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference.
3. At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. The signed agreement was provided on 7 March 2025, and follows the Council's approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (EPA Regulation 2021). The amended development application no longer includes a swimming pool, has increased the area of landscaping, has reduced the height of the proposed landscaping in the front and rear setbacks, has a reduced driveway width and has a changed upper level floor plan to open up view corridors from a neighbouring property.
4. 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 are required to be considered 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, and the documents that are referred to in condition 1. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.