HSL Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1702

HSL Group Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1702

Because the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites, including permissibility, development standards, relevant planning considerations, contamination, child care guideline consideration and notification, it was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, requiring disposal of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings Arising From Liverpool City Council's Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 651/2022, Brought Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'deemed Refusal']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'deemed Refusal']

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 Proceedings Arising From Liverpool City Council's Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 651/2022, Brought Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following a Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent 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 the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent to Development Application No. DA-651/2022 were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites, including permissibility, development standards, relevant planning considerations, contamination, child care guideline consideration and notification, it was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, requiring disposal of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA-651/2022, for the amalgamation of two lots, removal of identified trees, demolition of existing structures and the construction of a two storey child care centre for 110 children over basement parking on land legally described...