Redsab Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1092

Redsab Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1092

The Court was satisfied that the amended proposal was permissible with consent, complied with or was consistent with the relevant planning instruments and controls, and satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites. Because the parties' s 34 decision was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that decision by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 22 00282 / 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 thrown away costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Conference' 's 34 Agreement' 'deemed Refusal' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'child Care Centre' 'conciliation Conference' 's 34 Agreement' 'deemed Refusal' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 22 00282 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' decision in the s 34 agreement was a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether development consent should be granted for demolition, excavation, tree removal and construction of a 60 place two-storey childcare centre with basement car parking and associated works.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the amended proposal was permissible with consent, complied with or was consistent with the relevant planning instruments and controls, and satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites. Because the parties' s 34 decision was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that decision by upholding the appeal and granting conditional development consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's thrown away costs.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment by the Applicant for development consent pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $6,500 payable within 30 days of these orders being made by the Court." 'The...