Natoli v Woollahra Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 1102

Natoli v Woollahra Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 1102

The Court was satisfied on the evidence and the parties' jurisdictional assessment that there were no jurisdictional impediments to the agreed modification, that the amended Modification Application DA338/2015/3 satisfied s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that the parties' decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against the Deemed Refusal of Modification Application Da338/2015/3 / Final Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Consent DA338/2015 modified by consent to Modification Application DA338/2015/3.
Legal Topics
['modification Application' 'development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'existing Use Rights' 'heritage Item' 'basix' 'stormwater and Water Quality']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['modification Application' 'development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'existing Use Rights' 'heritage Item' 'basix' 'stormwater and Water Quality']

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 the Deemed Refusal of Modification Application Da338/2015/3 / Final Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision 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 Modification Application DA338/2015/3 satisfied the requirements of s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the modified development remained substantially the same as the originally approved development and did not result in further environmental impact.' 'Whether relevant jurisdictional requirements, including notification, heritage, geotechnical, BASIX, design verification and water quality matters, were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied on the evidence and the parties' jurisdictional assessment that there were no jurisdictional impediments to the agreed modification, that the amended Modification Application DA338/2015/3 satisfied s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and that the parties' decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Consent DA338/2015 modified by consent to Modification Application DA338/2015/3.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is directed to file the amended Modification Application DA338/2015/3 with the Court within 7 days of this order.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent DA338/2015 is modified by consent to Modification Application DA338/2015/3, in the terms set out in Annexure A.' 'Development Consent...