80 Penshurst St Pty Ltd ATF 80 Penshurst St Trust v Georges River Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1566


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:
T To (Applicant)
M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/84104
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is allowed.

  3. 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".

  4. 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)

Details
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 plaintiffs, 80 Penshurst St Pty Ltd ATF 80 Penshurst St Trust, sought judicial review of a decision made by the defendant, Georges River Council, regarding an application for approval of a development. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Georges River Council Local Environment Plan 2012, specifically the assessment of a proposed development in relation to the Heritage and Environment Protection (HEP) provisions. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

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.