Squillacioti v Camden Council [2023] NSWLEC 1090

Squillacioti v Camden Council [2023] NSWLEC 1090

Because the amended centre-based child care facility was permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, complied with relevant height and floor space ratio standards, was acceptable in relation to heritage, earthworks, child care planning standards and contamination, and the parties' s 34 decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement and grant consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application 2021/1210/1 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Signed S 34 Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application 2021/1210/1, as amended, determined by grant of consent subject to conditions in Annexure B.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'development Consent']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'development Consent']

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 Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application 2021/1210/1 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Signed S 34 Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' decision in the s 34 agreement 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 for granting development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the amended proposal complied with relevant planning controls concerning zoning, height, floor space ratio, heritage, earthworks, child care standards and contamination.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended centre-based child care facility was permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, complied with relevant height and floor space ratio standards, was acceptable in relation to heritage, earthworks, child care planning standards and contamination, and the parties' s 34 decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement and grant consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application 2021/1210/1, as amended, determined by grant of consent subject to conditions in Annexure B.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application 2021/1210/1, as amended...