Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1712

Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1712

The Court was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional bar, that the relevant statutory and planning prerequisites had been addressed, that submissions had been taken into consideration, and that the parties' decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court was therefore required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 1502/2022/ha / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Following Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as a result of amendment of the application, as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Agreement' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'section 34 Agreement' 'costs Thrown Away After Amendment']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application Appeal' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Agreement' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'section 34 Agreement' 'costs Thrown Away After Amendment']

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 Refusal of Development Application No. DA 1502/2022/ha / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Following Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement was a decision 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 relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent were satisfied.' 'Whether submissions received in response to notification were taken into consideration under s 4.15(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether development consent should be granted to the amended development application subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional bar, that the relevant statutory and planning prerequisites had been addressed, that submissions had been taken into consideration, and that the parties' decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The Court was therefore required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as a result of amendment of the application, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 1502/2022/HA for the removal of trees, excavation, site preparation, and construction of a two storey childcare centre with basement level car parking on the land known as 198 Excelsior Avenue, Castle Hill NSW subject to the...