Crooked River Land Holdings Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1323

Crooked River Land Holdings Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2022] NSWLEC 1323

Because the signed s 34 agreement reflected a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent had been addressed, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Section 34 Conciliation Agreement; Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application DA554/2021/1 to amend DA 274/2020 granted consent subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application Amendments' 'shop Top Housing Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard Variation' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'sepp 65 Design Quality' 'basix' 'flood Planning' 'acid Sulfate Soils' 'land Remediation']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application Amendments' 'shop Top Housing Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard Variation' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'sepp 65 Design Quality' 'basix' 'flood Planning' 'acid Sulfate Soils' 'land Remediation']

Source-derived case record

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 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Section 34 Conciliation Agreement; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' decision in the s 34 agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the proposed contravention of the floor space ratio development standard under cl 4.4 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 was justified under cl 4.6.' 'Whether the proposal adequately addressed heritage impacts in the Paddington Heritage conservation area under cl 5.10 of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014.' 'Whether matters concerning acid sulfate soils, excavation, groundwater, stormwater and flood planning were adequately addressed.' 'Whether the proposal satisfied relevant requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.' 'Whether BASIX and land remediation matters were adequately addressed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the signed s 34 agreement reflected a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent had been addressed, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 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; development application DA554/2021/1 to amend DA 274/2020 granted consent subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application DA554/2021/1 to amend DA 274/2020 at 432-440 Oxford Street, Paddington is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions set out in annexure "A".']