Building Design & Technology Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2021] NSWLEC 1701

Building Design & Technology Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2021] NSWLEC 1701

The Court was satisfied, adopting the parties' joint reasons, that the amended child care centre development was permissible with consent, complied with or satisfactorily addressed the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, and that the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; s 34(3) therefore required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da/2020/170/1 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application.
Legal Topics
['child Care Centre Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'conditional Development Consent' 'costs Thrown Away on Amendment']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'local Government'] ['child Care Centre Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'conditional Development Consent' 'costs Thrown Away on Amendment']

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 the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da/2020/170/1 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional 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 the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent to the amended development application were satisfied, including relevant planning controls, state environmental planning policies, national regulations and guidelines.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, adopting the parties' joint reasons, that the amended child care centre development was permissible with consent, complied with or satisfactorily addressed the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, and that the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; s 34(3) therefore required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent in accordance with section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Conditional development consent is granted to development...