MHM Invest Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1352

MHM Invest Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2023] NSWLEC 1352

The Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent because the parties had reached agreement under s 34, the jurisdictional prerequisites to the exercise of the Court's power to grant consent were satisfied, the proposed development as amended satisfied or appropriately addressed the relevant planning controls, approval was in the public interest, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Proceedings Resolved After S 34 Conciliation Conference by Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No 3572/2022, as amended, granted development consent subject to conditions at Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'centre Based Childcare Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'grant of Development Consent Subject to Conditions' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application Appeal' 'centre Based Childcare Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'grant of Development Consent Subject to Conditions' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent']

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 Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Proceedings Resolved After S 34 Conciliation Conference by Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent was a decision 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 jurisdictional prerequisites and relevant planning controls for the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether approval of the proposed development was in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the appeal and granted development consent because the parties had reached agreement under s 34, the jurisdictional prerequisites to the exercise of the Court's power to grant consent were satisfied, the proposed development as amended satisfied or appropriately addressed the relevant planning controls, approval was in the public interest, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No 3572/2022, as amended, granted development consent subject to conditions at Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No 3572/2022, as amended, for the amalgamation of lots, removal of identified trees, demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey centre based childcare centre for 81 children with at grade parking on land legally described as Lots 12 & 13 in...