LZ 26 Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2022] NSWLEC 1496
The proposed modification is 'substantially the same' as the development originally approved; all jurisdictional prerequisites are met; and the agreement between the parties is one the Court could make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
- Parties
- Applicant: LZ 26 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Hunters Hill Council
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Modification Application Appeal / Final Judgment/order After Conciliation
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; modification application approved as agreed
- Legal Topics
- Modification of Development Consent, Childcare Centre, Conciliation Conference, Agreement Between Parties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LZ 26 Pty Ltd
Applicant
Hunters Hill Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Modification Application Appeal / Final Judgment/order After Conciliation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed modification constitutes development 'substantially the same' as originally approved
- 2 Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for modification under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are satisfied
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed modification is 'substantially the same' as the development originally approved; all jurisdictional prerequisites are met; and the agreement between the parties is one the Court could make under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; modification application approved as agreed
Orders
- The Appeal is upheld.
- The Modification Application to modify the development consent regarding hours of outdoor play at 32 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill is approved as set out in Annexure A.
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