Chen v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1644

Chen v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2021] NSWLEC 1644

Because the appeal was properly brought, the proposed development was permissible with consent in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied or addressed by conditions, and there was no jurisdictional impediment, the parties' s 34 agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; the Court was therefore required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Application / Orders Made After Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development consent granted subject to conditions; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs thrown away.
Legal Topics
['development Application' 'development Consent' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' 'costs Thrown Away']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Application' 'development Consent' 'multi Dwelling Housing' 'conciliation Conference' 'section 34 Agreement' '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 Concerning a Development Application / Orders Made After Conciliation Conference and Agreement Under S 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the parties' agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 was a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions." 'Whether development consent should be granted to DA-1023/2019 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi dwelling housing at 179-181 Moorefields Road, Roselands NSW 2196 subject to conditions.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs thrown away under s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal was properly brought, the proposed development was permissible with consent in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, the relevant planning controls and jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied or addressed by conditions, and there was no jurisdictional impediment, the parties' s 34 agreement was a decision the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions; the Court was therefore required to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with that agreement.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs thrown away in accordance with s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the agreed amount of $4,000.00." 'The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Consent is granted to DA-1023/2019 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi...