Parseh Llanfoyst Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1090
The Court was satisfied that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, including the cl 4.6 request to vary the solar access development standard in s 18(2)(e) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. The written request adequately addressed cl 4.6(3), the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone objectives, and the other identified planning controls and prerequisites did not prevent consent. Accordingly, under s 34(3) of the Land and...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 March 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
- Legal Topics
- ['development Appeal' 'demolition and Lot Amalgamation' 'residential Flat Building' 'affordable Housing Scheme' 'solar Access Development Standard' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Court could dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreed decision under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' "Whether the Applicant's written request under cl 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 justified contravention of the solar access development standard in s 18(2)(e) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021." 'Whether development consent should be granted to Development Application DA526/2022 as amended, subject to conditions.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The relevant jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, including the cl 4.6 request to vary the solar access development standard in s 18(2)(e) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. The written request adequately addressed cl 4.6(3), the proposed development was in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone objectives, and the other identified planning controls and prerequisites did not prevent consent. Accordingly, under s 34(3) of the Land and...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant to pay Respondent's costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.
Orders
- ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed." "The Applicant's written request under clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 prepared by GSA Planning, seeking a variation of the...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment