Southern Freeholds Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2024] NSWLEC 1218
Because the jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied and the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the amended development application subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 April 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. DA 210/2023 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference Held on 19 April 2024
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; cl 4.6 written requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.
- Legal Topics
- ['shop Top Housing Development' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'amended Development Application' 'clause 4.6 Variation Requests' 'building Height Development Standard' 'floor Space Ratio Development Standard' 'costs Thrown Away']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. DA 210/2023 / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference Held on 19 April 2024
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement following the s 34 conciliation conference was a decision 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 granting consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether the written requests under cl 4.6 of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 to vary the maximum building height and floor space ratio development standards should be upheld.' 'Whether the amended development application should be determined by the grant of development consent subject to conditions.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied and the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the amended development application subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; cl 4.6 written requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.
Orders
- ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment of the Development Application, pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the sum of $10,100 within 28 days of these orders." "The Applicant's written request, prepared by LK Planning dated 7 December...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment