Mills v Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1492

Mills v Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1492

Because the amended development was permissible with consent, satisfied the relevant jurisdictional requirements under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, and the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Conciliation Conference Agreement Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders Made
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'multi Unit Residential Development' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Development' 'environmental Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['development Application' 'multi Unit Residential Development' 'affordable Rental Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'consent Orders' '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 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Conciliation Conference Agreement Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could approve Development Application 33/2020/HA, as amended, in the proper exercise of its functions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites under the relevant environmental planning instruments were satisfied.' "Whether the proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended development was permissible with consent, satisfied the relevant jurisdictional requirements under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, and the parties' agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the amended plans and documents nominated in Condition 1 of Annexure 'A' to this agreement." 'The Applicant is to pay the Respondents cost thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in...