Oxford Number 1 Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1224

Oxford Number 1 Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1224

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...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeal / Conciliation Conference; Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No. 216/2016 approved subject to conditions in Annexure "A".
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'childcare Centre Approval']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'childcare Centre Approval']

Source-derived case record

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 / Conciliation Conference; Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties had reached an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 as to terms of a decision acceptable to them.' 'Whether the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' "What orders should be made to give effect to 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 by granting leave to rely on amended plans, upholding the appeal and approving the development application subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No. 216/2016 approved subject to conditions in Annexure "A".

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and supporting documents referred to in condition 4 of the conditions of consent in Annexure "A".' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application No. 216/2016 lodged with the Respondent on 18 May 2017 for construction of a single storey childcare...