Thompson v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1082 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Thompson v Randwick City Council [2026] NSWLEC 1082 | Case summary | Zoe

COMMISSIONER: This appeal concerns an application to modify a development consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at 35 Pine Street, Randwick. The proposed modification is for the enlargement of the approved single width garage carport to a larger width carport from 3.94m wide to 4.5m wide (4m wide internal clearance). It also seeks to modify the consent for associated removal of landscaping, removal of walls and extension of slab, drainage gate and driveway cross over, and amendment to the bin storage door design to replace the approved roller shutter door with a bifold door. Following the refusal of the modification application, the applicant lodged an appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the modification application pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [11] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
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 (NSW) (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 19 February 2026. I presided over the conciliation conference.
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 final signed agreement was filed on 20 February 2026, following the approval by the Council of an amendment to the modification application, pursuant to s 113(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW) (EPA Regulation 2021). The amendment reduces the width of the modified carport, from 5.1m to 4.5m (with 4m internal width from column to column).
The decision agreed upon is for the grant of the modification application subject to conditions, pursuant to s 4.55(2) of the EPA Act. The signed agreement is supported by a Jurisdictional Statement provided on 20 February 2026, which sets out the jurisdictional matters about which the consent authority must be satisfied. I have considered the contents of the Statement, together with the documents referred to therein, the Class 1 Application and its attachments, the documents that are referred to in Condition 1 (of Annexure A), and the assessment report dated 7 January 2025 concerning the development application DA/1062/2024. Based on those documents, I have considered the matters required to be considered pursuant to ss 4.55(3) and 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.
As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I form this state of satisfaction on the basis that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted, as it remains a development for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, and the modified car port design maintains the approved pitched roof presentation with a similar maximum ridge height, and does not so alter the development such as to render it not substantially the same. I am also satisfied that the other minor and ancillary modifications proposed do not alter the development so as to render it not substantially the same.
The modification application was notified by Council between 4 to 19 June 2025. In response to the notification of the application, one submission in support of the application was received during the public consultation period.
Consistent with the requirements of s 100(3)(a) of the EPA Regulation 2021, the modification application is accompanied by the BASIX certificate dated 30 October 2024 (Certificate No. A1770945).
Having reached the state of satisfaction that the decision is one that the Court could make in the proper 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, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the modification application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under ss 4.55(3) and 4.15(1) of the EPA Act.