As Built Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2023] NSWLEC 1302

As Built Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2023] NSWLEC 1302

The Court was satisfied that the amended development application met the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and planning controls, and that the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions 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, the Court was therefore required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 483/2022 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld and development consent granted to Development Application No. DA-483/2022 as amended, subject to conditions at Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'dwelling Houses' 'demolition' 'boundary Adjustment' 'overlooking and Visual Privacy' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Appeal' 'dwelling Houses' 'demolition' 'boundary Adjustment' 'overlooking and Visual Privacy' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement']

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(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 483/2022 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement 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 No. DA-483/2022 were satisfied.' 'Whether the amended proposal complied with relevant planning controls, including zoning, subdivision, demolition, minimum lot size, building height, floor space ratio, acid sulfate soils, contamination and BASIX requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the amended development application met the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and planning controls, and that the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions 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, the Court was therefore required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and development consent granted to Development Application No. DA-483/2022 as amended, subject to conditions at Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The Council agrees to the Applicant amending Development Application No. DA-483/2022, pursuant to section 37 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, in accordance with the amended plans and documents described in paragraph [12] of the judgment.' "The Applicant is to pay the Council's costs...