Think Planners Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1573

Think Planners Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1573

The Court was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites had been met, including notification, permissibility in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, heritage considerations, earthworks and stormwater matters, Education and Care Services National Regulations requirements, Child Care Planning Guideline considerations, and contamination under SEPP 55. Because the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 565/2020 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and S 34 Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; costs ordered against the Applicant.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'amended Application']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'centre Based Child Care Facility' 'conciliation Conference' 'development Consent' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites' 'amended Application']

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 Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application No. 565/2020 / Orders Following Conciliation Conference and S 34 Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites under the relevant environmental planning instruments were satisfied so that development consent could be granted.' 'Whether the appeal should be upheld and conditional development consent granted for the proposed child care centre development.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites had been met, including notification, permissibility in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, heritage considerations, earthworks and stormwater matters, Education and Care Services National Regulations requirements, Child Care Planning Guideline considerations, and contamination under SEPP 55. Because the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with that decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; costs ordered against the Applicant.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days of the date of this Order in full and final satisfaction of all the cost orders made in these proceedings." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development...