Savell v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1517

Savell v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1517

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed 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 that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application D/2015/735 for Alterations and Additions to an Approved But Not Constructed Dwelling at 22 Charlotte Street Rozelle / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application D/2015/735 approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A"; the Court noted the parties' agreement that there is to be no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'alterations and Additions to Dwelling' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Variations']
['planning and Environmental Law'] ['development Application' 'alterations and Additions to Dwelling' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Variations']

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 Refusal of Development Application D/2015/735 for Alterations and Additions to an Approved But Not Constructed Dwelling at 22 Charlotte Street Rozelle / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties had reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 as to terms of a decision acceptable to them' 'Whether the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed 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 that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application D/2015/735 approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A"; the Court noted the parties' agreement that there is to be no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure "A".' 'The 4.6 variation to clause 4.3A(3)(b) of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 prepared by the Applicant is agreed by the parties to be well founded and is upheld.'...