Ferris v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1391

Ferris v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1391

Because the amended proposal and agreed conditions satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites, including BASIX, contamination, permissibility, zone objectives, height, floor space ratio, stormwater, character and landscape requirements, the parties' agreed decision was one 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 by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application X/2020/2022 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'health Services Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'land Use Permissibility' 'basix' 'contamination' 'stormwater Management' 'character and Landscape' 'traffic and Car Parking']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Appeal' 'health Services Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'land Use Permissibility' 'basix' 'contamination' 'stormwater Management' 'character and Landscape' 'traffic and Car Parking']

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 Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application X/2020/2022 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent 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." 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether the proposed health services facility was permissible on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.' 'Whether the proposed development satisfied applicable planning controls concerning BASIX, contamination, zone objectives, height, floor space ratio, stormwater, character and landscape.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended proposal and agreed conditions satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites, including BASIX, contamination, permissibility, zone objectives, height, floor space ratio, stormwater, character and landscape requirements, the parties' agreed decision was one 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 by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "Development consent is granted to development application number X/2020/2022, seeking consent for alterations and additions to facilitate a health services facility at Lot B in Deposited Plan 339476, also known as 1 Boorea Street, Blaxland, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure...