Birch Properties Group Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1277

Birch Properties Group Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1277

The amended proposal satisfied the relevant jurisdictional matters under the applicable planning instruments and statutes, and the parties' agreed decision to grant consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application 1795/2021/ha / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'amended Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Appeal' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'amended Development Application' 'costs Thrown Away']

Source-derived case record

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 Deemed Refusal of Development Application 1795/2021/ha / 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 jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether development consent should be granted for a single storey centre based childcare facility for 90 children with basement carparking for 30 vehicles and removal of 2 trees at 37-39 Crane Road, Castle Hill.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended proposal satisfied the relevant jurisdictional matters under the applicable planning instruments and statutes, and the parties' agreed decision to grant consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment to the application for development consent under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $6,500.00, to be paid within 21 days of the date of...