Edmonds v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2025] NSWLEC 1543


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:

McMillan v Taylor (2023) 111 NSWLR 634; [2023] NSWCA 183

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:
G Visentin (Solicitor) (Applicants)
S Frost (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
McKee Legal Solutions (Applicants)
Hall and Wilcox (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/76810
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

Details
AGLC
Edmonds v Hunter's Hill Council [2025] NSWLEC 1543
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1543
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edmonds v Hunter's Hill Council is an appeal against a decision made by the Hunter's Hill Council, concerning a development application for alterations and additions to a heritage listed property located at 4 View Street, Woolwich. The applicant, Edmonds, sought to construct an enclosed courtyard and a lift within the property, which was subject to heritage listing. The council had previously refused the application on the basis that it did not comply with the relevant planning policies and heritage guidelines. Edmonds appealed this decision, asserting that the proposed alterations were consistent with the preservation of the property's heritage value while also meeting modern living standards.

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.