Prosperity Group 888 Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1421

Prosperity Group 888 Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1421

Because the amended development application was permissible, complied with or satisfactorily addressed the relevant LEP, Housing SEPP, RH SEPP, BC SEPP and DCP requirements, and the agreed conditions addressed relevant impacts, the parties' agreed decision was within power under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The Court therefore upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to conditions, with costs thrown away payable by the applicant under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application Da22/1021 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away by amendment of the development application.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'co Living Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Preconditions' 'planning Controls' 'costs Thrown Away by Amended Development Application']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment Court Procedure' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'co Living Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Preconditions' 'planning Controls' 'costs Thrown Away by Amended Development Application']

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 Against Refusal of Development Application Da22/1021 / Orders Following S 34 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 amended development application for demolition and construction of a two-storey co-living housing development satisfied the relevant jurisdictional preconditions and planning controls.' 'Whether development consent should be granted subject to agreed conditions.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs thrown away as a result of amendment of the development application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended development application was permissible, complied with or satisfactorily addressed the relevant LEP, Housing SEPP, RH SEPP, BC SEPP and DCP requirements, and the agreed conditions addressed relevant impacts, the parties' agreed decision was within power under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The Court therefore upheld the appeal and granted development consent subject to conditions, with costs thrown away payable by the applicant under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away by amendment of the development application.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay those costs of the respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the development application, in the sum of $5,000 within 28 days.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to...