Bay Street Botany Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1522

Bay Street Botany Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1522

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings were required to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement by making the final orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. 2016/24/1 / 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.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building Alterations and Additions' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 's 34(3) Orders' 'costs Under Section 97 B']
['environmental Planning and Development' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building Alterations and Additions' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 's 34(3) Orders' 'costs Under Section 97 B']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. 2016/24/1 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement 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 the proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the agreed decision approving Development Application No. 2016/24/1 subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings were required to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement by making the final orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted to leave to amend its Application Class 1 in accordance with Annexure "A".' 'The Appeal is upheld.' 'Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure "B".' "The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and...