Templeton Crescent Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1521

Templeton Crescent Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1521

The agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the amended development application satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites: the development was permissible as a centre-based child care facility in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, complied with relevant Transport and Infrastructure SEPP requirements, raised no contamination impediment under the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, complied with height and floor space standards, was not in a flood planning area, and adequately addressed earthworks considerations. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Actual Refusal of Development Application DA 834/2022 Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application DA-834/2022 granted consent subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by amendments.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreed Orders' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'agreed Orders' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Against Actual Refusal of Development Application DA 834/2022 Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference Under S 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant development consent 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." 'Whether the amended development application satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for consent, including requirements under the Transport and Infrastructure SEPP, Resilience and Hazards SEPP, and Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008.' 'Whether costs thrown away as a result of amendments should be paid by the Applicant under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions because the amended development application satisfied the identified jurisdictional prerequisites: the development was permissible as a centre-based child care facility in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, complied with relevant Transport and Infrastructure SEPP requirements, raised no contamination impediment under the Resilience and Hazards SEPP, complied with height and floor space standards, was not in a flood planning area, and adequately addressed earthworks considerations. Accordingly, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application DA-834/2022 granted consent subject to conditions; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away by amendments.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amendments made, in the sum of $1,000, in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, within 28 days of these orders." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application DA-834/2022 for demolition of...