Du v Fairfield City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1110

Du v Fairfield City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1110

The Court upheld the appeal and granted conditional development consent because the parties reached a s 34 agreement for a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the Acting Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites under the applicable environmental planning instruments and legislation were met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Development Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 433.1/2021 / Section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away in the agreed sum of $7,000.
Legal Topics
['child Care Centre Development' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Development Consent' 'flooding' 'stormwater Drainage' 'site Suitability' 'parking and Access' 'acoustic Impact' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['child Care Centre Development' 'deemed Refusal Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Development Consent' 'flooding' 'stormwater Drainage' 'site Suitability' 'parking and Access' 'acoustic Impact' 'costs Thrown Away']

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 Appeal Against Deemed Refusal of Development Application DA 433.1/2021 / Section 34 Conciliation Conference Agreement and Final Orders

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 jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent to the amended development application were satisfied.' 'Whether the amended development application addressed contentions concerning flooding, site suitability, outdoor play area, stormwater drainage, acoustic impact, and parking and access.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the appeal and granted conditional development consent because the parties reached a s 34 agreement for a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and the Acting Commissioner was satisfied that the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites under the applicable environmental planning instruments and legislation were met.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conditional development consent granted; Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's costs thrown away in the agreed sum of $7,000.

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 433.1/2021, as amended, for the demolition of existing structures, removal of trees, construction of a one (1) storey child care centre for a maximum of twenty-four (24) children, with six (6) parking spaces, landscaping and...