Wincrow Pty. Limited v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1000

Wincrow Pty. Limited v Liverpool City Council [2023] NSWLEC 1000

Because the parties reached agreement at the s 34 conciliation conference, the amended proposal satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and planning controls, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and granting consent subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against Refusal of Development Application No. DA 690/2022 Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Determination Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Outcome
Appeal upheld and Development Application No. DA-690/2022, as amended, approved subject to conditions of consent.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'class 1 Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'industrial Development' 'contaminated Land' 'flood Planning' 'stormwater Management' 'development Consent Conditions']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'class 1 Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'industrial Development' 'contaminated Land' 'flood Planning' 'stormwater Management' 'development Consent Conditions']

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 Refusal of Development Application No. DA 690/2022 Under S 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Determination Following S 34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreed decision to uphold the appeal and grant consent to the amended development application 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." 'Whether the jurisdictional prerequisites for granting consent to the proposed development under the relevant environmental planning instruments and s 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties reached agreement at the s 34 conciliation conference, the amended proposal satisfied the relevant jurisdictional prerequisites and planning controls, and the agreed decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, the Court was required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement by upholding the appeal and granting consent subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and Development Application No. DA-690/2022, as amended, approved subject to conditions of consent.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended documentation listed at Annexure "A" to this judgment.' "Within 28 days of making these orders, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $1000." 'The...