Botany Bay GP Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1581

Botany Bay GP Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1581

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 Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement and made orders upholding the appeal and modifying the development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Concerning a Section 96(8) Modification Application / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; section 96(8) modification application amended; DA-10/486 modified in accordance with the agreed orders.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'section 34 Orders']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'section 34 Orders']

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 Application Appeal Concerning a Section 96(8) Modification Application / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an agreement reached at or after a conciliation conference under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 could be given effect by the Court.' 'Whether the agreed decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.']

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 Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement and made orders upholding the appeal and modifying the development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; section 96(8) modification application amended; DA-10/486 modified in accordance with the agreed orders.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend the section 96(8) modification application to modify DA-10/486 filed directly with the Land and Environment Court as part of these proceedings to rely on the amended plans annexed to the Agreement as "A".' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Pursuant to section 96 (8) of the...