Princeton Capstack Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1532

Princeton Capstack Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1532

The Court was satisfied that the agreed modification order was within power because the heritage, contamination/resilience, BASIX, notification, s 4.15 and original-consent-reasons matters had been adequately addressed, and the development as modified would remain substantially the same in qualitative and quantitative terms as the development originally approved. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning Modification Application Mod/2023/0008 Under S 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The appeal was upheld and Development Consent DA/2021/0521 was modified.
Legal Topics
['modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'adaptive Re Use of Warehouse Building' 'residential Development' 'heritage Impact' 'basix' 'substantially the Same Development']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent Modification'] ['modification Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'adaptive Re Use of Warehouse Building' 'residential Development' 'heritage Impact' 'basix' 'substantially the Same Development']

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 Concerning Modification Application Mod/2023/0008 Under S 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision was one that 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 of Development Consent DA/2021/0521 under s 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' 'Whether the development as modified was substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.' 'Whether relevant matters under s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the reasons for the original grant of consent had been adequately considered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the agreed modification order was within power because the heritage, contamination/resilience, BASIX, notification, s 4.15 and original-consent-reasons matters had been adequately addressed, and the development as modified would remain substantially the same in qualitative and quantitative terms as the development originally approved. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

The appeal was upheld and Development Consent DA/2021/0521 was modified.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent DA/2021/0521 for the adaptive re-use of the existing buildings and alterations and additions to provide six multi dwelling units and associated works, including car parking, site remediation and street tree removal and replacement to be modified by changes to excavation,...