Alan Development Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1630
The Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional pre-requisites had been met, including contamination suitability, SEPP 65 design considerations, public utility infrastructure, and classified road requirements, and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The proceedings were therefore disposed of in accordance with the s 34(3) agreement.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 1230/2018/ha / Final Orders Following Agreement Reached at or After a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'residential Flat Building' 'subdivision' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 55—remediation of Land' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 65—design Quality of Residential Apartment Development' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 1230/2018/ha / Final Orders Following Agreement Reached at or After a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Court could dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' s 34(3) agreement." 'Whether the land was suitable having regard to contamination considerations under State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land cl 7(1).' 'Whether adequate regard had been given to the SEPP 65 design quality principles and relevant Apartment Design Guide objectives.' 'Whether essential public utility infrastructure was available or adequate arrangements had been made under State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 Appendix 11 cl 6.1.' 'Whether the requirements concerning development with frontage to a classified road under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 cl 101(2) were satisfied.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional pre-requisites had been met, including contamination suitability, SEPP 65 design considerations, public utility infrastructure, and classified road requirements, and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The proceedings were therefore disposed of in accordance with the s 34(3) agreement.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Orders
- ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 1230/2018/HA and to rely upon the amended plans and documents referenced at Condition 1 in Annexure A.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 1230/2018/HA seeking consent for the demolition of...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment