Tom Simmat & Associates Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1322

Tom Simmat & Associates Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2020] NSWLEC 1322

Because the parties' agreed decision was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and no jurisdictional impediment was raised or identified, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by granting leave to amend the application, upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application 130/2020/jp / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'child Care Centre' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Agreement' 'development Consent']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'child Care Centre' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Agreement' '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 Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against the Deemed Refusal of Development Application 130/2020/jp / Orders Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the parties' agreement under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the proposed decision to grant leave to amend the development application, uphold the appeal and grant development consent subject to conditions was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.' 'Whether relevant jurisdictional prerequisites for granting development consent under s 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties' agreed decision was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and no jurisdictional impediment was raised or identified, s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 required the Court to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by granting leave to amend the application, upholding the appeal and granting development consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to amend the application for development consent by relying on the amended plans identified in the orders.' 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to development application 130/2020/JP for the construction of a two storey premises with basement carparking for use as a child care...