Jazar Investments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2023] NSWLEC 1172

Jazar Investments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2023] NSWLEC 1172

The Court was satisfied that each agreed decision was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions: the amended signage development was permissible, heritage impacts and SEPP signage requirements had been considered and satisfied, submissions had been considered, and the Court had power under s...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeals Against a Development Control Order and Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Final Orders Following Agreement Reached at a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Both appeals upheld; development control order substituted; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Signage' 'development Control Order' 'remove Advertising Order' 'heritage Item' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control' 'heritage' 'advertising and Signage'] ['development Application for Signage' 'development Control Order' 'remove Advertising Order' 'heritage Item' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeals Against a Development Control Order and Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Final Orders Following Agreement Reached at a Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court could make orders in accordance with the parties' agreement to grant development consent to the amended development application subject to conditions." 'Whether the Court could substitute the development control order with a Remove Advertising Order requiring removal of signs not the subject of the development consent.' 'Whether the jurisdictional preconditions for granting development consent to the amended signage proposal were met.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that each agreed decision was one it could make in the proper exercise of its functions: the amended signage development was permissible, heritage impacts and SEPP signage requirements had been considered and satisfied, submissions had been considered, and the Court had power under s 8.18(4)(c) to substitute the original development control order with a Remove Advertising Order because signage without development consent was displayed contrary to the EPA Act.

Court Disposition

Both appeals upheld; development control order substituted; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 2022/160129, the appeal is upheld.' 'In proceedings 2022/160129, the Development Control Order contained at Annexure A is substituted for the Development Control Order issued by the Respondent to the Applicant, being Development Control Order No. BCM2 dated 12 May 2022, issued pursuant to section...