Woolworths Group Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1384

Woolworths Group Limited v Sutherland Shire Council [2022] NSWLEC 1384

The amended development application, supported by amended plans, reports, referrals and agreed conditions, satisfied the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, and the parties' agreed decision was therefore one the Court could lawfully make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No Da20/1105 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders Made in Accordance With the Parties' S34 Agreement
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'neighbourhood Retail Development' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law' 'development Consent'] ['development Application Appeal' 'conciliation Conference' 'neighbourhood Retail Development' 'jurisdictional Prerequisites for Consent' '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 Appeal Pursuant to S 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Against Refusal of Development Application No Da20/1105 / Conciliation Conference Under S 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979; Orders Made in Accordance With the Parties' S34 Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' s34 agreement represented a decision that 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 amended development application satisfied the relevant statutory and planning controls so that development consent could be granted.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended development application, supported by amended plans, reports, referrals and agreed conditions, satisfied the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites, and the parties' agreed decision was therefore one the Court could lawfully make in the proper exercise of its functions under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The appeal was upheld and development consent was granted subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development consent granted; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $15,000.00 within 28 days of the date of these orders." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development consent is granted to development application no. DA20/1105 for the...