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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment