Blainey North and Associates Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1242
Because the parties had reached an agreed decision to uphold the appeal and approve the modification application with amended conditions, and because the Commissioner was satisfied that the modified development was substantially the same development, was not inconsistent with the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 including cl 5.10, did not require notification under the Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015, and otherwise satisfied the relevant s 4.55(2) prerequisites, the agreed decision was one the Court could make 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...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Against Conditions Imposed by Woollahra Municipal Council in Consent of Modification Application DA 211/2015/3 to Modify Development Consent DA 211/2015/2 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; modification application DA 211/2015/3 approved subject to conditions.
- Legal Topics
- ['modification Application' 'class 1 Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'alterations and Additions to Existing Dwelling House' 'stormwater Conditions' 'heritage Conservation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Conditions Imposed by Woollahra Municipal Council in Consent of Modification Application DA 211/2015/3 to Modify Development Consent DA 211/2015/2 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one 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 modification application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites in s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the proposed modified development remained substantially the same development as originally approved and as previously modified.' 'Whether the proposed changes were consistent with the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014, including cl 5.10 relating to heritage conservation, and the Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties had reached an agreed decision to uphold the appeal and approve the modification application with amended conditions, and because the Commissioner was satisfied that the modified development was substantially the same development, was not inconsistent with the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 including cl 5.10, did not require notification under the Woollahra Development Control Plan 2015, and otherwise satisfied the relevant s 4.55(2) prerequisites, the agreed decision was one the Court could make 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...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; modification application DA 211/2015/3 approved subject to conditions.
Orders
- ['Leave is granted for the applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in Condition A10 of the conditions set out in Annexure "A".' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'The modification application DA 211/2015/3 to modify development consent DA 211/2015/2 is determined by approval subject to the conditions contained in...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment