Austral Projects Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1396

Austral Projects Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1396

Because the amended development application remained within the scope of the original application, the relevant jurisdictional preconditions were satisfied, the proposed development was permissible with consent and complied with or was conditioned to satisfy applicable planning controls, and there was no jurisdictional impediment, the parties' agreement was a decision 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 that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Application for a Child Care Facility / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; leave granted to amend the development application; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'amendment of Development Application' 'jurisdictional Preconditions' 'bush Fire Prone Land' 'remediation of Land' 'advertising and Signage']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'amendment of Development Application' 'jurisdictional Preconditions' 'bush Fire Prone Land' 'remediation of Land' 'advertising and Signage']

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 Concerning a Development Application for a Child Care Facility / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend the development application under cl 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.' 'Whether the agreement reached by the parties under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' 'Whether development consent could be granted for the proposed child care facility subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended development application remained within the scope of the original application, the relevant jurisdictional preconditions were satisfied, the proposed development was permissible with consent and complied with or was conditioned to satisfy applicable planning controls, and there was no jurisdictional impediment, the parties' agreement was a decision 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 that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; leave granted to amend the development application; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application to rely upon the plans and documents referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A.' "The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment referred to in Order 1 above pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and...