Jere Investment Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2022] NSWLEC 1623

Jere Investment Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2022] NSWLEC 1623

Because the parties reached agreement under s 34 and the Court was satisfied, on the joint jurisdictional statement and identified planning considerations, that the agreed decision to grant consent to the amended development application was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders by Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away by Amended Development Application']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'multi Dwelling Housing Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away by Amended Development Application']

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 Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of a Development Application / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders by Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the amended development application 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 the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent to the amended development application were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement under s 34 and the Court was satisfied, on the joint jurisdictional statement and identified planning considerations, that the agreed decision to grant consent to the amended development application was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the amended development application, in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), as agreed or assessed." 'The appeal is upheld.' "Development consent is granted to development application number DA 0510/21,...