Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd ATF The 888 New Canterbury Unit Trust v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1047 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 January 2018 Date of orders: 13 February 2018 Decision date: 13 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: modify the basement storage ramp and access stairs, consolidate the currently approved seven (7) ground floor retail tenancies into one (1) tenancy for use as hardware and building supplies store; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: 888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd ATF The 888 New Canterbury Unit Trust (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr M Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms C Morton, Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/248530 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Modification application no DA2014/00477.04 to amend development application no. DA2014/00477 for partial demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use development which seeks to modify the basement storage ramp and access stairs, consolidate the currently approved seven (7) ground floor retail tenancies into one (1) tenancy for use as a Sydney Tools hardware and building supplies store and provide a consistent FFL, associated amendments to car parking and loading facility, amenities and internal reconfigurations at 429-449 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill.
-
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 rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $5,000 within 28 days of these orders being made.
The appeal is upheld.
Modification application no DA2014/00477.04 to amend development application no. DA2014/00477 for partial demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use development which seeks to modify the basement storage ramp and access stairs, consolidate the currently approved seven (7) ground floor retail tenancies into one (1) tenancy for use as a Sydney Tools hardware and building supplies store and provide a consistent FFL, associated amendments to car parking and loading facility, amenities and internal reconfigurations at 429-449 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill is approved subject to the consolidated conditions contained at annexure “A”.
……………………….
Graham Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (220 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- 888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd ATF the 888 New Canterbury Unit Trust v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1047
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1047
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case included whether the council had the authority to revoke the planning permit, and if the grounds for revocation were valid under the relevant legislative framework. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council's decision was procedurally fair, whether there was a proper basis for revocation, and if the actions taken by the council were in line with the statutory provisions governing planning permits. The plaintiff also argued that the revocation caused significant prejudice, impacting the property's development potential and the trust's investment.
The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the council's powers and the requisite conditions for revoking a planning permit. The court held that the council's decision to revoke the permit was procedurally flawed, as it did not adhere to the procedural fairness required by law. Additionally, the court found that the grounds for revocation were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court concluded that the council's actions were not in line with the legislative framework, and thus the revocation was unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The orders made by the court included quashing the decision of the council to revoke the planning permit and mandating that the council refrain from enforcing the revocation.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.