Guntawong Developments No1 Pty Ltd ATF Guntawong Dev No1 Trust v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1403
The jurisdictional pre-requisites for each modification application were met: each modified development was substantially the same as the original approved development, notification and submissions requirements were satisfied, relevant s 4.15 matters including contamination, permissibility of subdivision and utility infrastructure did not prevent approval, and the agreed decisions were decisions the Court could have made. The Court was therefore 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 appeals and approving the modifications subject to consolidated conditions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeals Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Modification Applications / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
- Outcome
- Appeals upheld; modification applications approved; development consents modified subject to consolidated modified conditions.
- Legal Topics
- ['modification Applications' 'development Consent' 'subdivision' 'deferred Commencement Consents' 'conciliation Agreement' 'jurisdictional Pre Requisites']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeals Under S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Modification Applications / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the modification applications could be determined under s 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the development to which each consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as originally approved.' 'Whether notification and submissions requirements under s 4.56(1)(b), (c) and (d) were met.' 'Whether relevant matters under s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including contamination, subdivision controls and public utility infrastructure, were satisfactorily addressed.' "Whether the parties' agreed decisions were decisions the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979."]
Ratio Decidendi
The jurisdictional pre-requisites for each modification application were met: each modified development was substantially the same as the original approved development, notification and submissions requirements were satisfied, relevant s 4.15 matters including contamination, permissibility of subdivision and utility infrastructure did not prevent approval, and the agreed decisions were decisions the Court could have made. The Court was therefore 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 appeals and approving the modifications subject to consolidated conditions.
Court Disposition
Appeals upheld; modification applications approved; development consents modified subject to consolidated modified conditions.
Orders
- ['In Proceedings 2022/144270, the Appeal is upheld.' 'In Proceedings 2022/144270, the Modification Application (MOD‑22‑00115), which seeks consent to modify DA‑17‑02750 to reflect the revised subdivision plans and conceptual engineering plan detail due to the amended drainage strategy for the parent subdivision...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment