Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2022] NSWLEC 1533

Aplus Architecture Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2022] NSWLEC 1533

The Court was satisfied that all jurisdictional pre-requisites were met and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could make. The Applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed why strict compliance with the height standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and identified sufficient environmental planning grounds for the minor 0.15m contravention. The development was consistent with the objectives of cl 4.3 and the B2 Local Centre zone, and relevant SEPP, CLEP, DCP and s 4.15 matters had been considered. Accordingly, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da/2021/1789 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Filed Agreement as to Terms of Decision; Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; cl 4.6 written request upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'mixed Use Development' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'building Height Development Standard' 'land Contamination and Remediation' 'traffic Generating Development' 'flood Planning' 'earthworks' 'hawkesbury Nepean River Planning Considerations']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'mixed Use Development' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'building Height Development Standard' 'land Contamination and Remediation' 'traffic Generating Development' 'flood Planning' 'earthworks' 'hawkesbury Nepean River Planning Considerations']

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(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da/2021/1789 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Filed Agreement as to Terms of Decision; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court could dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979" 'Whether jurisdictional pre-requisites to granting development consent were satisfied' 'Whether the written request under cl 4.6 of the Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010 justified contravention of the building height development standard in cl 4.3' 'Whether the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the B2 Local Centre zone' 'Whether consent should be granted to DA/2021/1789 subject to conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that all jurisdictional pre-requisites were met and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could make. The Applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed why strict compliance with the height standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and identified sufficient environmental planning grounds for the minor 0.15m contravention. The development was consistent with the objectives of cl 4.3 and the B2 Local Centre zone, and relevant SEPP, CLEP, DCP and s 4.15 matters had been considered. Accordingly, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; cl 4.6 written request upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application referred to at [3] above, in accordance with section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), in the amount of $6,000 within 28 days from the date of these orders." 'The Applicant\'s...