Warde v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2019] NSWLEC 1322

Warde v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2019] NSWLEC 1322

Because the parties reached an agreement at the conciliation conference and the Commissioner was satisfied that the proposed drainage modification was of minimal environmental impact, the modified development was substantially the same development, no notification was required, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with the parties' decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Modification Application Made Pursuant to S 4.55(1 A) / Orders Made Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; modification application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'stormwater Drainage Arrangements' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'substantially the Same Development']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent Modification'] ['modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'stormwater Drainage Arrangements' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'substantially the Same Development']

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 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of a Modification Application Made Pursuant to S 4.55(1 A) / Orders Made Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 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 proposed modification satisfied the jurisdictional pre-requisites in s 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'Whether notification was required for the modification application']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement at the conciliation conference and the Commissioner was satisfied that the proposed drainage modification was of minimal environmental impact, the modified development was substantially the same development, no notification was required, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with the parties' decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; modification application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend the modification application to rely upon the amended concept stormwater plans referred to in the table to condition 5 of Annexure A.' 'The Appeal is upheld.' 'Modification Application No. DA-274/2015/B for modification of Development Consent No. DA-274/2015 for the...