Farris v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1170

Farris v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2020] NSWLEC 1170

Because the parties reached agreement on a decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions, and the Commissioner was satisfied that relevant jurisdictional matters had been addressed, that there were no further jurisdictional prerequisites, and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings had to be disposed of in accordance with that decision under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'secondary Dwelling' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'secondary Dwelling' '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 Against Refusal of Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions 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." 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for the grant of development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement on a decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions, and the Commissioner was satisfied that relevant jurisdictional matters had been addressed, that there were no further jurisdictional prerequisites, and that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the proceedings had to be disposed of in accordance with that decision under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents identified in order 1, including Architectural Plans prepared by Ridge Designs and BASIX Certificate No. 899432S_04 prepared by Ridge Design dated 2 March 2020.' 'Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment...