Johnson Property Group v Cessnock City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1274

Johnson Property Group v Cessnock City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1274

Because the parties reached agreement at the conciliation conference and the Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, including that the modified development was substantially the same development as originally approved as required by s 4.55(2)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Modification Application to Amend a Development Consent for Subdivision / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; modification application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Modification' 'subdivision' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'section 7.11 Contributions']
['planning and Environmental Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['development Consent Modification' 'subdivision' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'section 7.11 Contributions']

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 Concerning a Modification Application to Amend a Development Consent for Subdivision / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement reached at the conciliation conference." 'Whether the agreed decision was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for modifying the development consent under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied, including whether the modified development was substantially the same development as originally approved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement at the conciliation conference and the Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, including that the modified development was substantially the same development as originally approved as required by s 4.55(2)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; modification application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is given leave to amend the modification application by substituting the following plan as the plan relied upon for the purpose of the modification application Subdivision Plan prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV, Job Number PA1879; Dwg. PA1879-DA2-002, Rev. D, dated 28/5/19.' 'The Applicant is given...