Ghignone v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1021

Ghignone v Liverpool City Council [2022] NSWLEC 1021

Because the parties' s 34 agreement embodied a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the relevant planning and contamination prerequisites were satisfied or addressed by agreed conditions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreement by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. DA 26/2021 / Section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'residential Subdivision' 'development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'remediation of Land' 'state Environmental Planning Policy Controls' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'residential Subdivision' 'development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'remediation of Land' 'state Environmental Planning Policy Controls' '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 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Following Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. DA 26/2021 / Section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the development was permissible and compliant with relevant provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.' 'Whether the land could be made suitable for the proposed development having regard to cl 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties' s 34 agreement embodied a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the relevant planning and contamination prerequisites were satisfied or addressed by agreed conditions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the agreement by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant to pay respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent is granted to Development Application Number DA-26/2021...