Vinogradov v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1690

Vinogradov v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1690

Because the amended development application had owner consent, had been notified with submissions considered, was permissible with consent in the R1 General Residential zone, complied with height and floor space ratio standards, did not require an acid sulfate soils management plan, was suitable having regard to contamination considerations, satisfied relevant coastal and BASIX requirements, and reflected a decision agreed by the parties, the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions and the proceedings had to be disposed of in accordance with that decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/4367/2022 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; leave granted to rely on amended plans; Applicant ordered to pay agreed thrown away costs.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'deemed Refusal' 'conciliation Conference' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'development Consent' 'amended Plans' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'deemed Refusal' 'conciliation Conference' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'development Consent' 'amended Plans' '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 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da/4367/2022 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent was one 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.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended development application had owner consent, had been notified with submissions considered, was permissible with consent in the R1 General Residential zone, complied with height and floor space ratio standards, did not require an acid sulfate soils management plan, was suitable having regard to contamination considerations, satisfied relevant coastal and BASIX requirements, and reflected a decision agreed by the parties, the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions and the proceedings had to be disposed of in accordance with that decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; leave granted to rely on amended plans; 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 Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act...