Vinogradov v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1675

Vinogradov v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1675

The jurisdictional prerequisites identified by the parties were satisfied, including owner consent, notification, permissibility in the R1 General Residential zone, compliance with height and floor space ratio standards, no requirement for an acid sulfate soils management plan, an updated BASIX certificate, consideration of the Resilience SEPP and the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. The parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions was therefore a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, requiring the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement under s 34(3) of the Land...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/185/2023 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conferences and a S 34 Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay agreed thrown-away costs.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'amended Development Application' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'amended Development Application' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/185/2023 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conferences and a S 34 Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether leave should be granted for the Applicant to rely on amended plans and development consent granted subject to conditions.' "Whether the Applicant should pay the consent authority's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdictional prerequisites identified by the parties were satisfied, including owner consent, notification, permissibility in the R1 General Residential zone, compliance with height and floor space ratio standards, no requirement for an acid sulfate soils management plan, an updated BASIX certificate, consideration of the Resilience SEPP and the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. The parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions was therefore a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, requiring the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement under s 34(3) of the Land...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay agreed thrown-away costs.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans identified in Annexure A.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent is granted to Development Application DA/185/2023 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of three, 2-storey units, including associated landscaping at Lot 486...