Precision Planning Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1530

Precision Planning Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1530

The Court was satisfied that the jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the 4.3A(3)(b) site coverage contravention because the proposal achieved the relevant objectives, had sufficient environmental planning grounds related to preserving the heritage character presentation to the street, and was in the public interest. Accordingly, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement, uphold the variation request, uphold the appeal, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Orders After S 34 AA Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Written cl 4.6 request upheld; appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application for Alterations and Additions' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'landscaped Areas and Site Coverage Development Standard' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'basix' 'stormwater Management' 'heritage Conservation Area']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Application for Alterations and Additions' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'landscaped Areas and Site Coverage Development Standard' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'basix' 'stormwater Management' 'heritage Conservation Area']

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 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Final Orders After S 34 AA Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one 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 written request under cl 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 justified contravention of the cl 4.3A(3)(b) site coverage development standard.' 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the jurisdictional prerequisites were met and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The cl 4.6 written request adequately justified the 4.3A(3)(b) site coverage contravention because the proposal achieved the relevant objectives, had sufficient environmental planning grounds related to preserving the heritage character presentation to the street, and was in the public interest. Accordingly, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement, uphold the variation request, uphold the appeal, and...

Court Disposition

Written cl 4.6 request upheld; appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions of consent at Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The written request pursuant to cl 4.6 of the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 (LLEP) seeking a variation to the landscaped areas for residential accommodated in Zone R1 development standard in cl 4.3A(3)(b) of the LLEP, prepared by Bruce Threlfo filed 4 September 2023, is upheld.' 'The appeal is upheld.'...