Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 80 Penshurst St Pty Ltd ATF 80 Penshurst St Trust v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1566 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October 2018 Date of orders: 25 October 2018 Decision date: 25 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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: 80 Penshurst St Pty Ltd ATF 80 Penshurst St Trust (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
T To (Applicant)
M Staunton (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/84104 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans dated 19 October 2018, copies of which are behind Annexure "A" for the purpose of the development application.
The appeal is allowed.
Modification application MOD2018/0007 seeking to modify development consent 2016/0363 to add additional bedrooms at level 3, modifications to ground floor retail and addition of a substation at 80 Penshurst Street, Penshurst is determined by approving the modification as set out in Annexure "B".
As a consequence of (3) above, Development Consent No 2016/0363 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure "C".
……………………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (5.86 MB, pdf)
Annexures B and C (242 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- 80 Penshurst St Pty Ltd ATF 80 Penshurst St Trust v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1566
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1566
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the proposed development constituted a 'heritage item' under the Local Environment Plan, and if so, whether the development was consistent with the objectives of the HEP provisions. A secondary issue was the procedural fairness of the Council’s assessment process, specifically whether the Council adequately considered the objections raised by the plaintiffs.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Local Environment Plan and determined that the proposed development did not constitute a 'heritage item'. The court found that the Council had correctly applied the HEP provisions in approving the development. Regarding the procedural fairness, the court found that the Council had appropriately considered the objections raised by the plaintiffs, ensuring that the decision-making process was fair and unbiased.
As a result of these findings, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for judicial review. The court held that the Council’s decision was legally sound and in compliance with the relevant statutory requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs' appeal was unsuccessful.
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.