Tracy v Shoalhaven City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1229

Tracy v Shoalhaven City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1229

Because the amended detached residential shed development was permissible with consent, complied with the height standard, raised no unresolved contamination, acid sulfate soil, earthworks, essential services or development control plan impediment, and the submissions had been considered by amendments or conditions, the Court was satisfied that the agreed approval subject to conditions was a decision it could make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; the proceedings therefore had to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da22/2101 / Orders Made Following S 34 AA Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; amended development application DA22/2101 approved subject to conditions of consent in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'detached Residential Shed' 'amended Plans' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' 'shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (resilience and Hazards) 2021']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'detached Residential Shed' 'amended Plans' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' 'shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014' 'state Environmental Planning Policy (resilience and Hazards) 2021']

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 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da22/2101 / Orders Made Following S 34 AA Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend development application DA22/2101 in accordance with the updated plans.' "Whether the parties' agreement to approve the amended development application subject to conditions was a decision the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether relevant statutory planning matters, including owner consent, notification and submissions, contamination, zoning, height, acid sulfate soils, earthworks, essential services and the development control plan, permitted approval of the amended development application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended detached residential shed development was permissible with consent, complied with the height standard, raised no unresolved contamination, acid sulfate soil, earthworks, essential services or development control plan impediment, and the submissions had been considered by amendments or conditions, the Court was satisfied that the agreed approval subject to conditions was a decision it could make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; the proceedings therefore had to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; amended development application DA22/2101 approved subject to conditions of consent in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend the development application (DA22/2101) pursuant to s 38 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 in accordance with the updated plans identified in Condition 1 of Annexure A.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application DA22/2101, for the...