Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Edmonds v Hunter’s Hill Council [2025] NSWLEC 1543 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 July 2025 Date of orders: 30 July 2025 Decision date: 30 July 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application DA2024/0234 for dwelling alterations and additions including enclosed courtyard and lift to a heritage listed property on Lot 1 in DP861902, being 4 View Street, Woolwich NSW 2110 is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this agreement.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, s 38
Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012, cll 4.6, 5.10, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 6.9
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Hunters Hill Consolidated Development Control Plan 2013
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lyndsay John Edmonds (First Applicant)
Gail Margaret Edmonds (Second Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Visentin (Solicitor) (Applicants)
S Frost (Solicitor) (Respondent)
McKee Legal Solutions (Applicants)
Hall and Wilcox (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/76810 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought by the applicants under Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, are an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal by Hunter’s Hill Council (Council) of development application DA2024/0234 (DA). The DA seeks consent for proposed dwelling alterations and additions including enclosed courtyard and lift at 4 View Street, Woolwich (legally described as Lot 1 in DP861902) (site).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 11 July 2025, after the parties indicated they had come to an agreement in relation to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. I presided over the conciliation conference.
-
The parties' decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application, as amended, and subject to agreed conditions. The parties seek orders to this effect. 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 one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
-
The point of attention here, rather than a broader evaluative exercise, is whether there are any jurisdictional constraints on the power of the Court to make the order agreed to be the parties (McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183 at [62]-[65]). It is my finding that there are no…
Continue reading Edmonds v Hunter's Hill Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Edmonds v Hunter's Hill Council [2025] NSWLEC 1543
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1543
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were primarily whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and justified. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, planning policies, and heritage guidelines, and determine whether the council's decision was in accordance with these legal frameworks. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the proposed alterations would have an adverse impact on the heritage value of the property, and whether any adverse impact could be mitigated through conditions imposed on the consent.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the council's refusal of the development application was not justified. The court determined that the proposed alterations, including the enclosed courtyard and lift, were consistent with the preservation of the property's heritage value. The court was satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed works would not compromise the integrity of the heritage listing. Furthermore, the court found that the council had not adequately considered the potential benefits of the proposed alterations in terms of improved accessibility and modern living standards. The court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the applicable legal frameworks. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the development application was granted subject to specific conditions aimed at preserving the heritage value of the property.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application DA2024/0234 for dwelling alterations and additions including enclosed courtyard and lift to a heritage listed property on Lot 1 in DP861902, being 4 View Street, Woolwich NSW 2110 is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A to this agreement.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.