Woollahra Developments Pty. Limited v Council of the Municipality of Woollahra [2023] NSWLEC 1579
The Court upheld the appeal and approved the modification because the parties reached an agreement under s 34, the agreed decision was within the Court's power, the modified development was substantially the same as the originally approved development, required consultation and notification matters were satisfied, and the applicable planning instruments and jurisdictional preconditions did not present any impediment to approval.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Modification Application for Development Consent No. 607/2021 / Orders Made Following a S34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 607/2021 modified in the terms agreed by the parties.
- Legal Topics
- ['modification Application Under S 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'section 34 Conciliation Agreement' 'jurisdictional Preconditions for Modification of Development Consent' 'residential Flat Building Development' 'woollahra Heritage Conservation Area' 'state Environmental Planning Policies' 'local Environmental Planning Controls']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Modification Application for Development Consent No. 607/2021 / Orders Made Following a S34 Conciliation Conference and Agreement Between the Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Court could dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' agreed decision under s 34(3) of the LEC Act." 'Whether the development as modified would be substantially the same development as originally approved for the purposes of s 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether relevant jurisdictional preconditions under environmental planning instruments and regulations were satisfied, including contamination, design quality, BASIX, biodiversity and conservation, heritage, height, floor space ratio and earthworks matters.' 'Whether the modification application should be approved subject to the agreed conditions.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court upheld the appeal and approved the modification because the parties reached an agreement under s 34, the agreed decision was within the Court's power, the modified development was substantially the same as the originally approved development, required consultation and notification matters were satisfied, and the applicable planning instruments and jurisdictional preconditions did not present any impediment to approval.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; Development Consent No. 607/2021 modified in the terms agreed by the parties.
Orders
- ['The appeal is upheld.' "Development Consent No. 607/2021 for the demolition of, and alterations and additions to, existing buildings and the construction of a residential flat building development across multiple lots, including land remediation and consolidation of lots at 2A James Street and 60-80 Oxford Street,...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment