NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Path Investment Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1414 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 July 2024 Date of orders: 23 July 2024 Decision date: 23 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Espinosa C Decision: The Court orders: (1) The appeal is upheld. (2) Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away in the proceedings, in the full and final agreed sum of $10,000.00 to be paid within 28 days of these orders. (a) The Court notes that the parties agree that the full and final costs thrown away in the proceedings are: i. $8,000.00 in relation to the amendment made pursuant to the Applicant's notice of motion filed 7 June 2024 (and order 2 of the Court's orders made on 13 June 2024); and ii. $2,000.00 in relation to the amendment made pursuant to (2) above. (3) Development application number DA23/0284, as amended, for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a centre-based childcare facility for 110 children with basement parking on land identified as Lot 231 in Deposited Plan 535744 and Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 25569 and known as 27-29 Waratah Road, Engadine NSW 2233, is determined by the grant of development consent subject to the conditions included at Annexure A. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – centre based child care facility – stormwater management and deferred commencement condition – agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.16, 8.7, 8.15 Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 1979, s 38 Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015, cl 6.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, s 4.6 State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, Ch 3, Pt 3.3, ss 3.23, 3.26 Cases Cited: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (2011) 81 NSWLR 638; [2011] NSWCA 349 Ballina Shire Council v Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd [2020] NSWLEC 41 Truslan Dumaresq Development Pty Ltd v Ku-ring-gai Council [2022] NSWLEC 1169 PC Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Wentworth Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1139 Texts Cited: Child Care Planning Guidelines Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Path Investment Group Pty Ltd ACN 605 341 857 (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Griffiths (Solicitor)(Applicant) J Amy (Solicitor)(Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate