Kingsford Property Developments Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1668

Kingsford Property Developments Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1668

Because the parties reached agreement at a s 34 conciliation conference and the Court was satisfied that the Further Amended DA was permissible, satisfied the applicable planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, that the clause 4.6 written requests adequately justified variation of the height and floor space ratio standards, and that approval was in the public interest, the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Principal Judgment Following S 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; clause 4.6 variation requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'section 34 Conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Development Standard Variations' 'height of Buildings' 'floor Space Ratio' 'heritage Conservation' 'stormwater Management' 'contaminated Land' 'sydney Drinking Water Catchment' 'hawkesbury Nepean River' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Application Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Principal Judgment Following S 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to grant development consent 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 written requests under clause 4.6 of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 to vary the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards should be upheld.' 'Whether the Further Amended Development Application satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites and relevant planning controls for grant of consent.' 'Whether development consent should be granted to Development Application No. X/236/2020 subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement at a s 34 conciliation conference and the Court was satisfied that the Further Amended DA was permissible, satisfied the applicable planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, that the clause 4.6 written requests adequately justified variation of the height and floor space ratio standards, and that approval was in the public interest, the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; clause 4.6 variation requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by the amended Development Application referred to in paragraph [14](2)(a)(i), in accordance with section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $13,000, within 28 days from the date of these orders." "The...