Macri v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWLEC 1685

Macri v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWLEC 1685

Because the parties had reached agreement and the Court was satisfied that the jurisdictional prerequisites were met, including satisfaction of the relevant planning controls and the clause 4.6 preconditions for the height and dwelling density contraventions, the parties' decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions and therefore had to be given effect under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da2020/1351 / Decision Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Where the Parties Reached Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application DA2020/1351 approved subject to conditions in Annexure A; clause 4.6 variation requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay agreed thrown away costs of $15,000.
Legal Topics
['shop Top Housing Development' 'development Appeal' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'clause 4.6 Variation Requests' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'dwelling Density Development Standard' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Development Consent']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['shop Top Housing Development' 'development Appeal' 'conciliation Conference Agreement' 'clause 4.6 Variation Requests' 'height of Buildings Development Standard' 'dwelling Density Development Standard' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Development Consent']

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 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application Da2020/1351 / Decision Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Where the Parties Reached Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement 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 to granting development consent for DA2020/1351 were satisfied.' 'Whether the clause 4.6 written request to vary the height of buildings development standard in clause 4.3 of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 should be upheld.' 'Whether the clause 4.6 written request to vary the dwelling density development standard in clause 4.5A(2) of Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 should be upheld.' 'Whether development consent should be granted subject to conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties had reached agreement and the Court was satisfied that the jurisdictional prerequisites were met, including satisfaction of the relevant planning controls and the clause 4.6 preconditions for the height and dwelling density contraventions, the parties' decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions and therefore had to be given effect under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application DA2020/1351 approved subject to conditions in Annexure A; clause 4.6 variation requests upheld; Applicant ordered to pay agreed thrown away costs of $15,000.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Applicant is to pay, on or before 1 December 2021, those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of the Court allowing the Applicant to file the Amended Development Application agreed at $15,000.' 'The updated written request...