Becka v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1360

Becka v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1360

Because the parties reached agreement to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the amended development application subject to conditions, and the Court was satisfied on the evidence that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 22/0081 / Determination Following Conciliation Conference Under Ss 34 and 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted to development application 22/0081, as amended, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['development Application' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'dual Occupancy Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 22/0081 / Determination Following Conciliation Conference Under Ss 34 and 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the amended development application subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the amended development application subject to conditions, and the Court was satisfied on the evidence that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted to development application 22/0081, as amended, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "Development consent is granted to development application 22/0081, as amended, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy with basement carparking and swimming pools on land legally described as Lot 13 in Deposited Plan 13952 known as 1 Grandview Parade,...