Sage by Moran Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1115

Sage by Moran Pty Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1115

The Court was satisfied, adopting the parties' reasons, that the Amended Modification Application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites, including that the modified development was substantially the same development, that notification had occurred with no submissions, and that the relevant planning matters had been considered. Because the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Agreement Between the Parties and Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 20/0737 modified.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites Under S 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Appeal' 'modification of Development Consent' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites Under S 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

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 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Agreement Between the Parties and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Amended Modification Application was substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted as required by s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for modification of Development Consent No. DA20/0737 under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' "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."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, adopting the parties' reasons, that the Amended Modification Application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites, including that the modified development was substantially the same development, that notification had occurred with no submissions, and that the relevant planning matters had been considered. Because the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 20/0737 modified.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent No. 20/0737 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.' 'Development Consent No. 20/0737 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.']