Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Siddiqui v Ku-ring-gai Council [2025] NSWLEC 1739 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 October 2025 Date of orders: 14 October 2025 Decision date: 14 October 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No eDA0115/25, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing building to create an attached dual occupancy development at 24 Larchmont Avenue, East Killara, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – attached dual occupancy development – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 4.16, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 38
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 4.3, 4.4, 4.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, 6.6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, ss 164, 166, Ch 6
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6
Cases Cited: Cumming v Cumberland Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 117
Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90
Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council (2018) 236 LGERA 256; [2018] NSWLEC 118
Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446; [2007] NSWLEC 827
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Fareeda Siddiqui (Applicant)
Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Gough (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Morton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/214188 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal of Development Application No eDA0115/25 for alterations and additions to an existing building to create an attached dual occupancy development (the proposal), at 24 Larchmont Avenue, East Killara (the site), by Ku-ring-gai Council (the Council).
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 2 October 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. 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’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are preconditions to the exercise of power to grant development consent for the proposal.
Amended application
-
The Council, as the consent authority, consented to the amendment of the application pursuant to s 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Siddiqui v Ku-ring-gai Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1739
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Court needed to address was whether the Local Council's refusal to grant consent for the development was legally sound, considering the provisions of the planning scheme and any relevant case law. The Court had to evaluate the merits of the development application and the reasons provided by the Council for their decision. Furthermore, it had to determine whether the Council's decision was made according to the law and was supported by proper and relevant considerations.
Justice Groves found that the Council's decision to refuse consent was not legally sound. The Court held that the Council had failed to consider relevant factors and had relied on irrelevant considerations in their decision-making process. The Court found that the development was consistent with the planning scheme and should be approved. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted consent for the development, subject to specific conditions outlined in Annexure A.
Orders
Orders of the court
The orders of the Court are:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Application No eDA0115/25, as amended, for alterations and additions to an existing building to create an attached dual occupancy development at 24 Larchmont Avenue, East Killara, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.
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.