JRNN Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1482

JRNN Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1482

Because the parties reached a signed agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, and the Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one it could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, including satisfaction of the relevant LEP clause 4.6, SEPP 55 and Infrastructure SEPP requirements, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No.da2018/140.1 / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and S 34 Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application no DA2018/140.1 approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'mixed Use Development' 'remediation of Land' 'classified Road Access']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'clause 4.6 Written Request' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'mixed Use Development' 'remediation of Land' 'classified Road Access']

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 Development Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No.da2018/140.1 / Final Orders Following Conciliation Conference and S 34 Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was a decision that 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 written request under clause 4.6 of the Ashfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 justified contravention of the maximum height development standard in clause 4.3.' 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land were satisfied.' 'Whether development consent should be granted to Development Application no DA2018/140.1 subject to agreed conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached a signed agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, and the Court was satisfied that the agreed decision was one it could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, including satisfaction of the relevant LEP clause 4.6, SEPP 55 and Infrastructure SEPP requirements, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application no DA2018/140.1 approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended architectural plans and material as referred to in condition 4 of the conditions of consent contained at Annexure 'A', and the amended clause 4.6 written request at Annexure 'B'." 'The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away...