Whitfield v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2025] NSWLEC 1738


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Whitfield v Northern Beaches Council [2025] NSWLEC 1738
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference held on 2 and 3 October 2025
Date of orders: 3 October 2025
Decision date: 03 October 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Espinosa C
Decision:

The Court orders:

(1) The modification application MOD2025/0006 is approved.

(2) Development consent DA2022/0409 is modified in the terms in Annexure ‘A’.

(3) Development consent DA2022/0409 as modified by the Court is Annexure ‘B’.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – modification application – residential development – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 (NSW), s 4.55

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), ss 34, 34AA

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), s 113

Cases Cited:

Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1795

Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1288

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Vivienne Whitfield (First Applicant)
Anthony McLeneghan (Second Respondent)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Ede (Solicitor)(Respondent)

Solicitors:
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)

Other:
Vivienne Whitfield (Self-represented) (First Applicant)
Anthony McLeneghan (Self-represented) (Second Applicant)
File Number(s): 2024/447084
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act) being an application MOD2025/0006 to the Court, seeking approval to modify a development consent DA2022/0409 (the Consent) as modified by the Court in the decision Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1795 and Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1288 for alterations and additions to a dwelling house at 79 Riverview Road, Avalon Beach legally identified as Lot 21 in Deposited Plan 18005 (the Site).

  2. The Modification Application filed with the Court on 2 December 2024 sought to modify the Consent granted to the DA by:

  1. increasing the width of the first floor deck by 2.5m on the northern side; and

  2. increasing the width of the first floor deck by 0.565m on the southern side.

  1. The Modification Application, as amended, proposes extending the northern end of the previously approved first floor balcony adjacent to the living area by 2.415m in the northern direction as well as the above described extension to the southern side.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 2 and 3 October 2025. I presided over the conciliation conference which commenced with a site view and hearing from a representative of the adjoining neighbour to the north of the Site.

  3. 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. This decision involved the Court approving the Modification Application subject to conditions.

  4. 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. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55 of the EPA Act to approve the modification to the Consent.

  6. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings to be the terms of s 4.55 of the EPA Act to modify a consent. The Respondent explained how the jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied in a jurisdictional note provided to the Court which I summarise below.

  7. The Proposed Modification, including as varied by agreed conditions of consent is “substantially the same” as the development the subject of the Consent for the purpose of s 4.55(2)(a) of the EPA Act. The difference between the Consent and the Proposed Modification is confined the elongation of the first floor balconies as follows:

  1. northern balcony by 2.415m, together with a 1.65m high x 2m wide privacy screen along the northern end of the balcony commencing at the north eastern corner of the enlarged balcony;

  2. southern balcony by 0.565m, together with a planter box at the southern end of that balcony as described in the conditions.

  1. Accordingly, the privacy impacts on the adjoining neighbours have been appropriately mitigated and there is no radical change between the two developments so that they can properly be characterised as being substantially the same.

  2. The Proposed Modification was notified in accordance with the Council’s Community Participation Plan: two submissions were received. These submissions have been taken into consideration by the parties in reaching their agreement.

  3. The reasons for the grant of the Consent are to be taken into consideration in determining an application to modify a consent pursuant to s 4.55(3) of the EPA Act. The parties have considered the reasons for the grant of the Consent, as set out in the Court’s judgments: Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWLEC 1795 and Whitfield & McLenaghan v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 1288.

  4. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act. I adopt the reasons given by the parties.

  5. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

Notations:

  1. The Court notes:

  1. The Respondent as the relevant consent authority has agreed under s 113(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), to the Applicant amending Modification Application No. MOD2025/0006 to include the amended Architectural Plans prepared by JJ Drafting Australia Pty Limited described below:

  1. Site Analysis Plan – 907/21 – MOD:01 – Rev C dated 7 February 2025

  2. Proposed First Floor Plan – 907/21 – MOD:02 – Rev C dated 7 February 2025

  3. Proposed West Elevation Plan – 907/21 – MOD:03 – Rev C dated 7 February 2025

  1. The amended plans were filed with the Court on 10 February 2025.

Orders:

  1. The Court orders:

  1. The modification application MOD2025/0006 is approved.

  2. Development consent DA2022/0409 is modified in the terms in Annexure ‘A’.

  3. Development consent DA2022/0409 as modified by the Court is Annexure ‘B’.

E Espinosa

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (176 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (915 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Whitfield v Northern Beaches Council [2025] NSWLEC 1738
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 1738
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the dispute were Whitfield, the applicant, and Northern Beaches Council, the respondent. The subject of the dispute was an application by Whitfield to modify a development consent previously granted to them. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to modify the conditions of a development consent granted in relation to a residential property on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. The primary issues the court needed to address were whether the proposed modifications to the development consent were in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies and whether the modifications would have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

The court began its analysis by examining the proposed modifications and comparing them to the original development consent. It assessed whether the modifications aligned with the planning laws and policies of the Northern Beaches Council and whether they adhered to the terms of the original development consent. The court also considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed modifications, taking into account expert evidence and submissions from relevant parties. The court found that the modifications were consistent with the planning laws and policies and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. It concluded that the modifications were reasonable and appropriate, and therefore approved the modification application.

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted the importance of ensuring that development consents are flexible enough to accommodate reasonable modifications while still protecting the public interest and the environment. It emphasised that modifications should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of each application. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated a commitment to mitigating any potential environmental impacts associated with the modifications. Based on this analysis, the court approved the modification application and modified the development consent accordingly. The modified development consent is set out in Annexure 'B' to the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The modification application MOD2025/0006 is approved.

(2) Development consent DA2022/0409 is modified in the terms in Annexure ‘A’.

(3) Development consent DA2022/0409 as modified by the Court is Annexure ‘B’.

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.