Newman v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1099

Newman v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1099

The Court was satisfied that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could make because the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed why compliance with the height of buildings development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and identified sufficient environmental planning grounds, the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the contravened standard and the B5 zone, and the stormwater management requirements were satisfied. The appeal was therefore upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 588/2016 / Principal Judgment Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Where the Parties Reached Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's agreed costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Mixed Use Development' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'section 34 Conciliation Agreement' 'stormwater Management' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application for Mixed Use Development' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'section 34 Conciliation Agreement' 'stormwater Management' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 588/2016 / Principal Judgment Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Where the Parties Reached Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court could dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites in cll 4.6(2) and 6.4(3) of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 were satisfied before granting development consent.' "Whether the applicant's written request adequately addressed cl 4.6(3) in relation to contravention of the height of buildings development standard." 'Whether the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the B5 zone.' 'Whether the development satisfied stormwater management requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could make because the applicant's cl 4.6 written request adequately addressed why compliance with the height of buildings development standard was unreasonable or unnecessary and identified sufficient environmental planning grounds, the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the contravened standard and the B5 zone, and the stormwater management requirements were satisfied. The appeal was therefore upheld and development consent granted subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's agreed costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $10,000 within 28 days of the date of the orders." 'The appeal is upheld.'...