Thanos v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1767

Thanos v Georges River Council [2021] NSWLEC 1767

Because the agreed modification was of minimal environmental impact, the development as modified remained substantially the same as the approved development, notification was not required, and the agreed decision was one the Court could make in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement and modify the development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Modification Application Under S 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 modified by agreement following conciliation conference.
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'substantially the Same Development' 'public Notification' 'retrospective Approval of Works']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between Parties' 'minimal Environmental Impact' 'substantially the Same Development' 'public Notification' 'retrospective Approval of Works']

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 Modification Application Under S 4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision 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 for modification under s 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the proposed modification was of minimal environmental impact and the development as modified was substantially the same development as originally approved.' 'Whether public notification was required for the modification application.' 'Whether works already carried out could be approved retrospectively by modification application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the agreed modification was of minimal environmental impact, the development as modified remained substantially the same as the approved development, notification was not required, and the agreed decision was one the Court could make in the exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement and modify the development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 modified by agreement following conciliation conference.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 is modified in the terms set out in Annexure A, including the amended plans listed in Condition 1 to Annexure A (Amended Plans).' 'Development Consent No. DA2018/0214 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.' 'The Court notes that the Amended Plans were...