Carter v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1700

Carter v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1700

Because the parties reached agreement and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions, including because owner consent had been given, relevant SEPP, LEP, DCP and notification requirements had been considered and did not warrant refusal, the proceedings were disposed of by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application / Section 34 Conciliation Conference; Parties Reached Agreement and Consent Orders Were Made
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'demolition and Construction of Garage' 'conciliation Conference' 'amended Plans' 'development Consent' 'flood Planning' 'stormwater Management' 'sydney Drinking Water Catchment' 'contaminated Land' 'heritage Impacts']
['environmental Planning and Development' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['development Application' 'demolition and Construction of Garage' 'conciliation Conference' 'amended Plans' 'development Consent' 'flood Planning' 'stormwater Management' 'sydney Drinking Water Catchment' 'contaminated Land' 'heritage Impacts']

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 / Section 34 Conciliation Conference; Parties Reached Agreement and Consent Orders Were Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could uphold the appeal and grant consent to development application X/345/2022 as amended, subject to conditions, 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 applicable planning controls and statutory considerations, including owner consent, contaminated land, water quality, catchment, zoning, heritage, flood planning, stormwater management, notification and the development control plan.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed decision was one the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions, including because owner consent had been given, relevant SEPP, LEP, DCP and notification requirements had been considered and did not warrant refusal, the proceedings were disposed of by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on amended plan 2102DA01 Issue 3 dated 19 October 2023.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development application X/345/2022 for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage and associated works at 14 Vale Street, Katoomba is determined by the grant of...