Twinfly Investments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2019] NSWLEC 1452

Twinfly Investments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2019] NSWLEC 1452

Because the parties reached agreements under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed grants of development consent to the amended applications were decisions the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions, including because the identified jurisdictional preconditions were met, the proceedings were disposed of in accordance with the agreed decisions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Application Appeals / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The appeals were upheld and both development applications were approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.
Legal Topics
['development Applications' 'development Consent' 'boarding House Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'state Environmental Planning Policies' 'contaminated Land' 'basix Certificate']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Applications' 'development Consent' 'boarding House Development' 'conciliation Conference' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'state Environmental Planning Policies' 'contaminated Land' 'basix Certificate']

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 Development Application Appeals / Orders Made Following Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the development applications and rely on amended plans.' "Whether the Court could properly make orders granting development consent to the amended applications subject to conditions following the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." 'Whether the jurisdictional preconditions identified by the parties were met, including permissibility in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, compliance with applicable development standards, BASIX requirements, and consideration of land contamination.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreements under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and the Commissioner was satisfied that the agreed grants of development consent to the amended applications were decisions the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions, including because the identified jurisdictional preconditions were met, the proceedings were disposed of in accordance with the agreed decisions.

Court Disposition

The appeals were upheld and both development applications were approved subject to conditions in Annexure A.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 2018/387730, the Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the plans referred to in operational condition 1 in Annexure A.' "In proceedings 2018/387730, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the...