/

/

Yin v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1798 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Yin v Ku-ring-gai Council

[2025] NSWLEC 1798

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2025-11-12|Before: Horton C

View on NSW Caselaw

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2025-11-12

Before

Horton C

Catchwords

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to dwelling house
– impact on heritage significance of an item – heritage
conservation
area – conciliation conference – agreement between parties -

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– impact on heritage significance of an item – heritageconservationarea – conciliation conference – agreement between parties -orders

Judgment

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

Medium Neutral Citation: Yin v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1798

Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5-6 November 2025

Date of orders: 12 November 2025

Decision date: 12 November 2025

Jurisdiction: Class 1

Before: Horton C

Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application eDA0546/24, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and detached garage and studio, a modified driveway and associated works on land legally described as Lot 1 in DP330347, being 56 Treatts Road, Lindfield, is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to dwelling house – impact on heritage significance of an item – heritage conservation area – conciliation conference – agreement between parties - orders

Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34AA, 34 Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.3, 4.4, 5.10, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, Pt 6.2 ss 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 s 2.1

COMMISSIONER: Development is proposed at a site at 56 Treatts Road, Lindfield known as ‘Brenchley’ that is listed on the State Heritage Register for its local heritage significance.
More specifically, development application No. eDA0546/24 was lodged by the Applicants in these proceedings, Mr Xiaodong Yin and Ms Min Ye (together the Applicants) with Ku-ring-gai Council on 18 December 2024, seeking consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on the site, and to a detached garage and first floor rooms, modification of the existing driveway and associated works (the DA).
The development application was subsequently notified by the Council between 21 January 2025 and 4 February 2025, in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan in response to which no public submissions were received.
The development application was refused by the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel on behalf of the Council on 14 April 2025 and the Applicants filed an appeal with the Court on 5 June 2025 under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act)
The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties on 5 November 2025, pursuant to s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act), at which I presided.
After an onsite view, the conciliation conference re-convened at Court, during which the parties reached in-principle agreement on those issues in dispute, subject to the preparation of amended plans.
A signed agreement prepared in accordance with s 34(10) of the LEC Act was submitted to the Court, dated 6 November 2025, and amended plans and other documents were filed on the same date.
The parties ask me to approve their decision as set out in the agreement before the Court. In general terms, the agreement approves the development subject to amended plans that were prepared on behalf of the Applicants, and noting that the final detail of the works and plans are specified in the agreed conditions of development consent annexed to the s34 agreement.
Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties prepared a jurisdictional statement to assist the Court in understanding how the requirements of the relevant environmental planning instruments have been satisfied in order to allow the Court to make the agreed orders at [30].
The site is located within an area designated by the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP) to be R2 Low Density Residential, in which the proposed development is permitted with consent, where consistent with the following objectives of development in the zone:

As the site is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment as identified by the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map, Part 6.2 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Biodiversity SEPP) applies.
Section 6.6 of the Biodiversity SEPP precludes the grant of consent unless the Respondent council, or the Court on appeal, is satisfied that the proposed development ensures that, firstly, the effect on the quality of water entering a natural waterbody will be as close as possible to neutral or beneficial, and secondly, that the impact on water flow in a natural waterbody will be minimised.
On the basis of Condition 12A, I am satisfied that there are no changes proposed to the surfaces outside of the existing building footprint, and that the area of impervious roof is also proposed to be maintained as existing such that there will be no change in the rate, volume or velocity of discharge from the site. I am also therefore satisfied that the water quality resulting from the development is likely to be neutral within the catchment, and that water flow is minimised by no virtue of there being no additional discharge.
For similar reasons I have also considered those matters at s 6.7 of the Biodiversity SEPP and am satisfied, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impact on terrestrial, aquatic or migratory animals or vegetation to a minimum, and no adverse impact on aquatic reserves, or in terms of erosion.
I note that the site is not identified as flood liable land to which s 6.8 of the SEPP is directed and so does not apply. Neither will the proposed development have an impact on recreational land uses or access to public land, in terms set out in s 6.9 of the Biodiversity SEPP.
On the same basis, I am satisfied that water sensitive urban design principles are incorporated in the development by the collection of stormwater runoff via first flush devices, its retention and reuse so that potential adverse environmental impacts are likely to be avoided in terms required by cl 6.5 of the KLEP.