Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: 1390 Botany Road Botany Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Botany Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1569 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October 2015 Date of orders: 29 January 2016 Decision date: 29 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Subdivision; construction of 8 x 2 storey townhouses; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 1390 Botany Road Botany Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Botany Bay (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr A Whealy (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr J Cole (Solicitor)
Applicant: Gadens
Respondent: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
File Number(s): 10713 of 2015
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
_________________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner
10713 of 2015 - Order (11.6 KB, pdf)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany - Architectural (5.65 MB, pdf)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany--Concept stormwater-12001-D1-D4-DA ISSUE F (1.51 MB, PDF)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany-landscape-L101-Rev B-botany-20151210 (884 KB, pdf)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany--LOT SURVEY- 13292P (89.1 KB, PDF)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany--S34 - 20150813 - Clause 4.6 (v2) 11-12-2015 (1.00 MB, pdf)
Annexure A - 1390 Botany Rd Botany--TRUNK DRAINAGE- 12001-TD1-TD3-DA ISSUE E (630 KB, PDF)
Annexure A - BASIX V2 1390 Botany Rd, Botany (120 KB, pdf)
Annexure A - Class1Schedule (81.5 KB, pdf)
Annexure A - E22316 AB - Botany - DSI (17.2 MB, pdf)
10713 of 2015 Annexure B Conditions (122 KB, pdf)
Amendments
22 February 2016 - Amended Architectural Plans on Annexure A.
02 February 2016 - Amended 'Date of Orders' and 'Date of Decision' on the Judgment Cover sheet.
- AGLC
- 1390 Botany Road Botany Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Botany Bay [2015] NSWLEC 1569
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1569
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with whether the council's decisions were lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning laws and policies. The plaintiff argued that the council's decisions were not made in accordance with the law and that the council had failed to properly consider relevant environmental and planning matters. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decisions were lawful, rational, and in line with the relevant planning laws and policies.
The court found that the council had indeed failed to properly consider the environmental and planning implications of the proposed development. The court held that the council's decisions were not made in accordance with the law, as they had not adequately considered the relevant policies and guidelines. The court also found that the council had not properly assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. As a result, the court quashed the council's decisions and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration.
In conclusion, the court ordered that the council's decisions be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court did not make any specific orders regarding the development application itself, leaving that matter for the council to determine upon reconsideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) below
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.