Timothy A Nicolson Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1256

Timothy A Nicolson Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2021] NSWLEC 1256

The Court was satisfied that the Council had power to issue the Development Control Order, that the Applicant had appealed within time, that the Court had Class 1 jurisdiction and power under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to vary the Order, and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 therefore required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Development Control Order / 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 Control Order varied as set out in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Terms of Development Control Order' 'conciliation Conference' 'variation of Order' 'authorised Works Under Development Consent' 'road Works and Access Works']
['planning and Environment' 'development Control Orders' 'local Government Roads'] ['appeal Against Terms of Development Control Order' 'conciliation Conference' 'variation of Order' 'authorised Works Under Development Consent' 'road Works and Access Works']

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 Development Control Order / 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 Court had jurisdiction to determine the Class 1 appeal against the Development Control Order.' 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for the exercise of power under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.' "Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and vary the Development Control Order was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the Council had power to issue the Development Control Order, that the Applicant had appealed within time, that the Court had Class 1 jurisdiction and power under s 8.18(4)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to vary the Order, and that the parties' agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 therefore required the proceedings to be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Development Control Order varied as set out in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' "The Development Control Order issued to the Applicant on 21 September 2020 by The Hills Shire Council in relation to Lot 208 DP 752025 and Lot 214 DP 752025 known as 1596-1598 Wisemans Ferry Road Maroota NSW is varied as set out in Annexure 'A'."]