Hafford v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1562

Hafford v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1562

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement and made the agreed orders without a merits assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Against Actual Refusal / Conciliation Conference; Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3)
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions in accordance with the parties' s 34(3) agreement.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'alterations and Additions to a Dwelling' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'costs of Reassessment']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'alterations and Additions to a Dwelling' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'costs of Reassessment']

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 Development Application Appeal Against Actual Refusal / Conciliation Conference; Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["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." 'Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/685 and rely on amended plans and documents.' "Whether the applicant's clause 4.6 request for variation of the Floor Space development standards under Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2011 should be upheld."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement and made the agreed orders without a merits assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved subject to conditions in accordance with the parties' s 34(3) agreement.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/685 and to rely upon the amended plans and documents identified in the orders.' "The Applicant's clause 4.6 request, prepared by All About Planning and dated 27 September 2018, for a variation of the Floor Space development standards under...