The Silver Arc Dreamscapes Pty Ltd trading as Dreamscape Architects v Liverpool City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1491

The Silver Arc Dreamscapes Pty Ltd trading as Dreamscape Architects v Liverpool City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1491

Because the amended proposal was permissible with consent, complied with or appropriately addressed the relevant planning controls and environmental planning instruments, had acceptable impacts, was suitable for the site and in the public interest, and because the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application DA 538/2019 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement on Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Development Application DA-538/2019 approved subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay $7,500.00 in thrown away costs.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'shop Top Housing' 'specialised Retail Premises' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'thrown Away Costs']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'shop Top Housing' 'specialised Retail Premises' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'thrown Away Costs']

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 Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Actual Refusal of Development Application DA 538/2019 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Parties Reached Agreement on Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["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." 'Whether the amended development application satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites and relevant planning controls for the grant of development consent.' 'Whether the amended proposal was permissible with consent in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone and complied with relevant height, floor space ratio, contamination, BASIX, infrastructure, acoustic, earthworks, classified road and impact considerations.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended proposal was permissible with consent, complied with or appropriately addressed the relevant planning controls and environmental planning instruments, had acceptable impacts, was suitable for the site and in the public interest, and because the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required by s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreement by upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Application DA-538/2019 approved subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay $7,500.00 in thrown away costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Section 8.15(3) of the EP&A Act, the Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent that were thrown away as a result of amending the development application in a sum of $7,500.00, within 28 days of the making of orders disposing of these proceedings.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development...