Court grants consent for six-lot Glenwood subdivision

The court arranged a conciliation conference under section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. According to the judgment, the parties reached agreement on the terms of a decision, and the Commissioner was required to dispose of the proceedings in line with that agreement if it was a decision the court could have made.

We reported on 4 November that an appeal over a Hornsby project was upheld. The agreed outcome here involved the court using section 4.16 of the Act to grant consent. The judgment says this was an extemporaneous decision, delivered on the day.

The numbers

The judgment states the Council consented to an amendment of the application under section 38(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The amended proposal finishes Poppy Way as a cul-de-sac; the original design had it running through to Ali Place.

The Council told the court it was satisfied that every contention in its Statement of Facts and Contentions, filed on 1 April 2026, was resolved by the amended application and the conditions of consent. The Commissioner therefore only needed to consider whether any provision in an environmental planning instrument limited the power to grant consent.

On that point, the Commissioner accepted the Council’s assessment that the site is suitable for the development. That rests on an environmental detailed site investigation dated 1 December 2025, prepared by KFM Geotech Pty Ltd, and the matters under section 4.6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 were found to be satisfactorily addressed.

The site also sits in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment, so the catchment rules in Chapter 6 of the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP 2021 apply. According to the judgment, the Council assessed that the proposal would not lower the quality of water reaching a natural waterbody, and would come as near as possible to a neutral effect. That assessment rests on water quality targets, treatment through stormwater drainage easements and pits, and sediment and erosion control plans.

The judgment does not state a dwelling count, a construction cost or a sale value, so none is reported here.

What’s next

The orders are in three parts. First, the appeal is upheld. Second, consent is granted to DA 25-02117 as amended, on the conditions at Annexure A. Third, the applicant must pay the Council’s costs thrown away because of the amendment, as agreed or assessed, under section 8.15(3) of the Act. The judgment does not give a dollar figure for those costs.

Consent allows the subdivision and civil works to proceed within the approved conditions. The judgment does not set a start date or a lot release timetable.