DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — conciliation conference — agreement between the parties — orders
Quick Take
1Where the consent authority is satisfied that all contentions are resolved by an amended application and conditions, the Court in a s 34 conciliation disposal need only be satisfied of provisions in environmental planning instruments that constitute jurisdictional constraints on the grant of consent (applying Joseph v Spencer (2026) 266 LGERA 133; [2026] NSWCA 46 at [140]).
2Under the savings provision in s 4.46 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021, a development application lodged but not determined when the State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Concurrences and Consultations) 2026 commenced must be determined as if that amendment had not commenced. The repealed s 2.48 T&I SEPP electricity infrastructure referral requirement therefore continued to apply.
3On the facts, the jurisdictional preconditions were each satisfied on the evidence and the Council's assessment. These included contamination (s 4.6 Resilience and Hazards SEPP), Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment water quality (BC SEPP Ch 6), signage (I&E SEPP s 3.6), flood planning, salinity, essential services, active street frontage and urban heat (Penrith LEP 2010).
