Danawe v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1574

Danawe v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1574

Because the amended boarding house proposal was permissible with consent, complied with the relevant height and floor space ratio standards, satisfied the relevant provisions of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 and State Environmental Planning Policies, and objector concerns had been adequately addressed or were not pressed further, the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 From Actual Refusal of a Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Council's agreed costs thrown away of $2,000.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'boarding House' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'planning Controls' 'costs Thrown Away']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['development Application' 'boarding House' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'planning 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 From Actual Refusal of a Development Application / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement 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 amended development application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and planning controls for the grant of development consent.' 'Whether costs thrown away as a result of the amended plans should be paid by the Applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended boarding house proposal was permissible with consent, complied with the relevant height and floor space ratio standards, satisfied the relevant provisions of the Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012 and State Environmental Planning Policies, and objector concerns had been adequately addressed or were not pressed further, the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Council's agreed costs thrown away of $2,000.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application Number DA 515/2018 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three-storey boarding house containing 22 boarding rooms (including 1 manager\'s room) and one basement level containing carparking with 11 car spaces and 5 motorcycles spaces on Lot 16 in...