This case underscores the importance of ensuring that commissioners provide appropriate and appropriate justifications for granting approval at a Section 34 consultation conference. Commissioners must ensure that they take into account all the essential conditions before giving their consent and ensure that they take these conditions into account in their argument. Following the absence of a conference under section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act of 1979 („the Act“), the head of the court issued the planning authorization in accordance with the conditions agreed under section 34, paragraph 3 of the Act. Section 34, paragraph 3, states that, as soon as an agreement has been reached, the Commissioner: Al Maha Pty Ltd (who owned the adjacent site, as well as an object of da challenge on the basis of the intervention of the proposed DA on the land of Al Maha Pty Ltd without the owner`s consent, has opened a judicial review of the decision of the National Court and the Environment , that the consent given is not valid. He also stated that the Commissioner was not entitled to give his consent, as the Commissioner had not provided the satisfactions under section 4.6 of the 2013 Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan. These two deficiencies remove the jurisdiction of the National Court and the Environment (CI-APRÈS LEC) for the approval of the construction project. The UC can only authorize a decision or agreement between the parties, which is a decision that the Tribunal could have made in the proper performance of its duties. In Al Maha Pty Ltd v. Huajun Investments Pty Ltd  NSWCA 245, the City Council and the developer (`Huajun `) agreed to accept the conditions allowing Huajun to build „temporary“ access to the construction area, provided it is later replaced by permanent access to a back alley.
The conditions of approval required Huajan to build the rear access (and temporary access) as soon as the Council acquired the neighbouring country (Al Maha). The Council had not yet acquired this country at the time. The Court of Appeal found that Al Maha therefore owned land on which the development was to be carried out and to which the development application related (even if the „development“ is a proposal for future development). Recently, the Court of Appeal ruled that a section 34 agreement (and subsequent approval by the Tribunal) was invalid for two reasons: in addition, the Environmental Planning Assessment Act of 1979 stipulates that a construction application must contain proof that the owner whose land is open with the consent of the application is open. Given that part of the land application was filed by Al Maha Pty Ltd and al Maha Pty Ltd did not agree to it, the Commissioner erred at first instance in his decision to give his consent. To the extent that it is not possible to definitively justify why the case should go directly to a hearing, the Court of a Conciliation Conference under Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act of 1979 (LEC Act) will list complaints relating to residential construction. However, once you have commenced a Class 1 procedure, you are no longer entitled to an audit under Section 82A. Therefore, you should consider your options before you start. If the agreement between the parties (on or after a conciliation conference) involves issues that do not fall within the scope of a decision that the LEC might otherwise make „in the course of its duties“, the decision of the LEC (and therefore the planning authorization) is overturned.