Fizelle v Yass Valley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1121

Fizelle v Yass Valley Council [2018] NSWLEC 1121

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.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Final Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application DA5.2017.59.1 approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'subdivision Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'subdivision Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Final Orders by Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreement reached between the parties under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' "Whether the proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement."]

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.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application DA5.2017.59.1 approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is upheld;' 'Development Application DA5.2017.59.1 seeking consent to subdivide Lot 1 DP1075827, known as 204 Back Creek Road, Gundaroo, into 2 Lots is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".']