Chan v City of Canada Bay Council [2020] NSWLEC 1338

Chan v City of Canada Bay Council [2020] NSWLEC 1338

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the proposed decision was within the Court's proper functions, the acoustic report demonstrated compliance with condition 71, and both the Respondent and the Court were satisfied that the Order had been sufficiently complied with, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreement and uphold the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.18 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Development Control Order / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
The appeal was upheld and the Court found that Development Control Order No. 11 had been sufficiently complied with.
Legal Topics
['development Control Order' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference' 'noise Emissions From Air Conditioner' 'compliance With Development Consent Condition']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Control Order' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference' 'noise Emissions From Air Conditioner' 'compliance With Development Consent Condition']

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 8.18 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against a Development Control Order / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Control Order No. 11 issued on 21 February 2020 had been sufficiently complied with.' "Whether the parties' agreed decision 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."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the proposed decision was within the Court's proper functions, the acoustic report demonstrated compliance with condition 71, and both the Respondent and the Court were satisfied that the Order had been sufficiently complied with, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreement and uphold the appeal.

Court Disposition

The appeal was upheld and the Court found that Development Control Order No. 11 had been sufficiently complied with.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Pursuant to s 8.18(4)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court finds that Development Control Order, being Order No. 11, issued by the Respondent on the First and Second Applicants on 21 February 2020 has been sufficiently complied with.']