Ace Chester Hill Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1657

Ace Chester Hill Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2024] NSWLEC 1657

The appeal is upheld and consent for the revised development is granted because all statutory pre-requisites are satisfied, the planning controls (including height variation and flood risk) are either complied with or validly justified, and procedural requirements (including public notification and referral agency concurrence) have been met. The parties' agreement falls within the Court's power to make such an order under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Parties
Applicant: Ace Chester Hill Pty Ltd; Respondent: Canterbury-Bankstown Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Judgment After Conciliation Conference and Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted
Legal Topics
Development Application, Local Environmental Plan, Statutory Planning, Development Consent, Planning Appeal
Environmental Law Planning Law Development Application Local Environmental Plan Statutory Planning Development Consent Planning Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ace Chester Hill Pty Ltd

Applicant

Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (class 1, Land and Environment Court) / Judgment After Conciliation Conference and Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jurisdictional pre-requisites for grant of development consent are satisfied under the relevant planning legislation
  2. 2 Whether proposed development, including height breach and flood risk, complies with or is justified under planning controls
  3. 3 Whether proper procedural and statutory referral requirements have been met for approval of residential flat building

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is upheld and consent for the revised development is granted because all statutory pre-requisites are satisfied, the planning controls (including height variation and flood risk) are either complied with or validly justified, and procedural requirements (including public notification and referral agency concurrence) have been met. The parties' agreement falls within the Court's power to make such an order under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments made in accordance with s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed the sum of $7,500 within 28 days of the date of the judgment.