Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1488

Charalambous v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1488

Because the amended development application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites, the cl 4.6 requests for minimum lot size and floor space ratio were well founded, approval was in the public interest, 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 Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da23/0433 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; cl 4.6 variation requests upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay agreed costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'development Consent' 'co Living Housing' 'mixed Use Development' 'clause 4.6 Variation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'minimum Lot Size' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environmental Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Appeal' 'deemed Refusal' 'development Consent' 'co Living Housing' 'mixed Use Development' 'clause 4.6 Variation' 'floor Space Ratio' 'minimum Lot Size' 'section 34 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 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application Da23/0433 / 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 jurisdictional prerequisites to grant development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the cl 4.6 requests to vary the minimum lot size development standard in cl 69(1)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 and the floor space ratio development standard in cl 4.4 of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 should be upheld.' 'Whether development consent should be granted to development application DA23/0433 as amended.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended development application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites, the cl 4.6 requests for minimum lot size and floor space ratio were well founded, approval was in the public interest, 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 Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; cl 4.6 variation requests upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay agreed costs thrown away.

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 the amendment of the development application, in the agreed amount of $8,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order.' 'The appeal...