Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1656 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 December 2016 Date of orders: 09 December 2016 Decision date: 09 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Anthony Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Joe Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/226296 Publication restriction: No
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the section 96 modification application by substituting the following amended plans and documents relied on for the purpose of the section 96 application:
S96-105
Ground Level Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-106
Level 1 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-107
Level 2- Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-108
Level 3 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-109
Level 4 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-110
Level 5 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-111
Level 6 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-112
Level 7 - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-113
Roof Plan - Arch
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-201
Section 1
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-202
Section 2
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-203
McGill St Balcony Section
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-212
East Elevation
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-209
West Elevation
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-211
South Elevation
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
S96-210
North Elevation
31/10/16
Level 33 Architectural Division
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent ‘thrown away’ as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Modification application No DA 201500205.02 for reconfiguration of the approved building layout to provide for an additional studio on ground level and additional units at upper levels, modify materials and finishes, minor window adjustments and relocation of booster assembly to south-east corner of site at 14 McGill Street, Lewisham. is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
…………….
S Dixon
Commissioner
226296.16 Dixon (C) (120 KB, pdf)
226296.16 Plans (15.2 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- 14 McGill Street Lewisham Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1656
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1656
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application, and whether there were any material errors of law in the decision-making process. The applicant argued that the Council had failed to consider the potential economic benefits of the proposed development, and had instead relied on subjective and speculative concerns about traffic and noise. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and community concerns.
In determining the matter, the court considered the relevant statutory framework and the principles of administrative law. The court found that the Council had indeed failed to adequately consider the potential economic benefits of the proposed development, and that this omission rendered the decision unreasonable. The court also found that the Council had not properly assessed the impact of the development on traffic and noise, and had instead relied on speculative concerns. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Council be quashed, and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court also ordered that the applicant's costs of the proceedings be paid by the Council.
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.