Tahany Pty Ltd v Hunter’s Hill Council [2024] NSWLEC 1311

Tahany Pty Ltd v Hunter’s Hill Council [2024] NSWLEC 1311

The Court upheld each appeal and substituted the respective development control orders, being satisfied that the agreements reached in conciliation fell within the Court’s statutory power under s 8.18(4)(c) and (f) of the EPA Act, satisfied all jurisdictional prerequisites, and were decisions the Court could have made in proper exercise of its functions pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

Parties
Applicant: Tahany Pty Ltd; Respondent: Hunter's Hill Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Final Disposition Following Conciliation Conference; Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Each appeal upheld; substituted development control orders issued as agreed between the parties.
Legal Topics
Development Control Order, Demolish Works Order, Public Safety Order, Restore Works Order, Heritage Conservation Area, Jurisdictional Prerequisites, Conciliation Conference
Planning and Environment Law Development Control Order Demolish Works Order Public Safety Order Restore Works Order Heritage Conservation Area Jurisdictional Prerequisites Conciliation Conference

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tahany Pty Ltd

Applicant

Hunter's Hill Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal / Final Disposition Following Conciliation Conference; Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the substituted development control orders satisfy statutory requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Land and Environment Court Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the Court may uphold the appeals and substitute the original orders per s 8.18(4)(c) and (f) of the EPA Act following parties' agreement in conciliation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld each appeal and substituted the respective development control orders, being satisfied that the agreements reached in conciliation fell within the Court’s statutory power under s 8.18(4)(c) and (f) of the EPA Act, satisfied all jurisdictional prerequisites, and were decisions the Court could have made in proper exercise of its functions pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

Court Disposition

Each appeal upheld; substituted development control orders issued as agreed between the parties.

Orders

  • In the matter of 2023/271146: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Pursuant to s 8.18(4)(c) and (f) of the EPA Act, the Development Control Order issued by the Respondent dated 3 August 2023 is substituted with a development control order as set out in Annexure A.
  • In the matter of 2023/271190: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Pursuant to s 8.18(4)(c) and (f) of the EPA Act, the Development Control Order issued by the Respondent dated 3 August 2023 is substituted with a development control order as set out in Annexure B.