Parasher v Camden Council [2024] NSWLEC 1009

Parasher v Camden Council [2024] NSWLEC 1009

Because the respondent had approved the amendment of the development application, the parties had reached an agreement under s 34, and the Court was satisfied on the evidence that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal, upholding the s 4.6 written request, and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da2022/802/1 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; s 4.6 written request upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's thrown-away costs of $10,000 within 42 days.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'section 34 Conciliation Agreement' 'variation to Maximum Building Height Development Standard' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'residential Flat Building' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'section 34 Conciliation Agreement' 'variation to Maximum Building Height Development Standard' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away by 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 Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. Da2022/802/1 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one 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 amended development application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for the grant of development consent.' "Whether the applicant's s 4.6 written request to vary the maximum building height development standard should be upheld." 'Whether development consent should be granted to DA2022/802/1 subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent had approved the amendment of the development application, the parties had reached an agreement under s 34, and the Court was satisfied on the evidence that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal, upholding the s 4.6 written request, and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; s 4.6 written request upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's thrown-away costs of $10,000 within 42 days.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent that have been thrown away as a result of amending the development application, in the amount of $10,000 within 42 days of the date of these orders.' 'The appeal is upheld.' "The...