Abraham v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1370

Abraham v Inner West Council [2019] NSWLEC 1370

Because the parties reached agreement at the s 34 conciliation conference and the Commissioner was satisfied that the cl 4.6 written requests adequately addressed cl 4.6(3), that the environmental planning grounds justified the contraventions, and that the proposal was in the public interest by being consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standards and the zone, the Court could properly exercise its functions to uphold the variation requests, uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. D/2018/243 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No. D/2018/243 approved subject to the deferred commencement condition and conditions of consent at Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'development Standards' 'landscaped Area and Site Coverage' 'floor Space Ratio' 'adaptive Reuse']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'conciliation Conference' 'clause 4.6 Variation Request' 'development Standards' 'landscaped Area and Site Coverage' 'floor Space Ratio' 'adaptive Reuse']

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 No. D/2018/243 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court could make orders reflecting the parties' agreement reached at the conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." "Whether the applicant's written requests adequately addressed cl 4.6(3) of Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 for contraventions of the landscaped area, site coverage and FSR development standards." 'Whether the proposed development would be in the public interest because it was consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standards and the R1 General Residential zone.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement at the s 34 conciliation conference and the Commissioner was satisfied that the cl 4.6 written requests adequately addressed cl 4.6(3), that the environmental planning grounds justified the contraventions, and that the proposal was in the public interest by being consistent with the objectives of the contravened development standards and the zone, the Court could properly exercise its functions to uphold the variation requests, uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application No. D/2018/243 approved subject to the deferred commencement condition and conditions of consent at Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is granted leave to amend the application by relying on the amended plans and documentation referred to in condition 2 of Annexure A.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979...