Plumb v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1721

Plumb v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1721

The proposed modification was qualitatively and quantitatively substantially the same development as the approved residential flat building, the relevant notification, submission, BASIX and design verification requirements had been satisfied, relevant planning controls and s 4.15(1) matters had been considered, and the parties' agreed decision to approve the modification subject to conditions was therefore a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of an Application Under S 4.56 to Modify a Development Consent / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld and Development Consent DA/154/2020/A modified by agreement following conciliation.
Legal Topics
['development Appeal' 'modification of Development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'conciliation Agreement' 'substantially the Same Development' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Modification']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Appeal' 'modification of Development Consent' 'residential Flat Building' 'conciliation Agreement' 'substantially the Same Development' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Modification']

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 Against Deemed Refusal of an Application Under S 4.56 to Modify a Development Consent / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed modification to Development Consent DA/154/2020/A was substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.' 'Whether the notification and submission requirements for the modification application were satisfied.' 'Whether relevant matters under s 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the reasons for the original consent were taken into consideration.' "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 proposed modification was qualitatively and quantitatively substantially the same development as the approved residential flat building, the relevant notification, submission, BASIX and design verification requirements had been satisfied, relevant planning controls and s 4.15(1) matters had been considered, and the parties' agreed decision to approve the modification subject to conditions was therefore a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and Development Consent DA/154/2020/A modified by agreement following conciliation.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent DA/154/2020/A is modified in the terms in Annexure A.' 'Development Consent DA/154/2020/A as modified by the Court is Annexure B.']