Stefanovic v Willoughby City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1104
The Court was satisfied, on the evidence, observations and submissions, that all relevant jurisdictional matters had been addressed, including bush fire protection, BASIX, contamination, biodiversity and conservation, water catchment, zoning, cl 4.6 floor space ratio variation, earthworks and notification submissions. Because the parties' agreed decision to grant development consent to the amended development was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of DA 2023/78 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
- Outcome
- The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted to DA-2023/78, as amended, subject to conditions in Annexure A.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Consent' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'demolition and Construction of Dwelling House, Pool and Associated Site Works' 'floor Space Ratio Variation' 'bush Fire Prone Land' 'basix' 'vegetation Clearing' 'sydney Harbour Catchment' 'earthworks']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of DA 2023/78 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent 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 to the grant of development consent under s 4.16(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the proposed development, as amended, was acceptable having regard to bush fire prone land requirements, BASIX, contamination, biodiversity and conservation, water catchment, zoning, floor space ratio, earthworks, notification submissions and other planning controls.' 'Whether the written cl 4.6 request adequately addressed the matters required to justify variation of the floor space ratio development standard.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied, on the evidence, observations and submissions, that all relevant jurisdictional matters had been addressed, including bush fire protection, BASIX, contamination, biodiversity and conservation, water catchment, zoning, cl 4.6 floor space ratio variation, earthworks and notification submissions. Because the parties' agreed decision to grant development consent to the amended development was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
Court Disposition
The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted to DA-2023/78, as amended, subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No DA-2023/78, as amended, for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a three-storey dwelling, pool and associated site works on land at 44 Sunnyside Crescent, Castlecrag NSW 2068, known as Lot 175 in Deposited Plan...
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