Guiterez v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 1307

Guiterez v City of Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 1307

Because the amended plans, supporting documents, plan of management and agreed conditions satisfied the relevant requirements of the SEPP ARH, SEPP BASIX, HLEP, HDCP and s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act, there were no jurisdictional impediments to the parties' agreement. The agreement to uphold the appeal and grant development consent with conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, so the Court was required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application 689/2018 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions; leave granted to amend the development application; Applicants ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'boarding House' 'amenity' 'character' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'boarding House' 'amenity' 'character' 'conciliation Conference' '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 Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application 689/2018 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the development application and rely on amended plans and documents.' "Whether the parties' agreement to uphold the appeal and grant development consent with conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the amended development application satisfied relevant requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, Parramatta (former the Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 and The Hills Development Control Plan 2012.' 'Whether there were jurisdictional impediments to granting development consent to DA 689/2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended plans, supporting documents, plan of management and agreed conditions satisfied the relevant requirements of the SEPP ARH, SEPP BASIX, HLEP, HDCP and s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act, there were no jurisdictional impediments to the parties' agreement. The agreement to uphold the appeal and grant development consent with conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, so the Court was required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with it.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted with conditions; leave granted to amend the development application; Applicants ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ["Leave is granted to the Applicants to amend the development application and rely on the plans and documents listed under 'General Matters', condition 1 of Annexure A." "The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment to the development application in accordance with...