Boom Industries Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1118

Boom Industries Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1118

The parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the Commissioner considered the relevant matters under s 4.15(1) in determining the s 4.55 modification application, found the proposed modification to be of minimal environmental impact, and was satisfied...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Against Deemed Refusal Concerning a Modification Application Under S 4.55(1 A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; modification application granted consent subject to amended conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'conditional Development Consent']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'conditional Development Consent']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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 Against Deemed Refusal Concerning a Modification Application Under S 4.55(1 A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the proposed modification was of minimal environmental impact under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the development as modified was substantially the same development in accordance with subss 4.55(1A)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the Commissioner considered the relevant matters under s 4.15(1) in determining the s 4.55 modification application, found the proposed modification to be of minimal environmental impact, and was satisfied that the development as modified was substantially the same development; accordingly, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; modification application granted consent subject to amended conditions.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on plans contained in Condition 2 of Annexure 'A'." 'The Appeal is upheld.' 'The modification of development application DA/380/2017/A for the addition of operable louvred panels with glass backing to balconies, the addition of internal...