Telopea CCC Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2022] NSWLEC 1129

Telopea CCC Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2022] NSWLEC 1129

Because the relevant jurisdictional requirements were met, the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional development consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, 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
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 From Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 631/2021 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and the Court Made Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application No DA/631/2021 approved subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'conditional Development Consent']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreement Between the Parties' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'conditional 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 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 From Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 631/2021 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement and the Court Made Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional development consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions' 'Whether jurisdictional prerequisites under the applicable environmental planning instruments and legislation were satisfied' 'Whether the applicant entity details should be varied under s 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the relevant jurisdictional requirements were met, the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant conditional development consent was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; accordingly, 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 Application No DA/631/2021 approved subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 39(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the Applicant entity details on the Class 1 Application form be varied in accordance with Amended Class 1 Application form in Annexure B to this judgement.' 'Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the...