888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1649


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: 888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1649
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 16 November 2016
Date of orders: 23 December 2016
Decision date: 23 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson 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: 888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Whealy Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Inner West Council(Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/223874, 2016/223858
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This matter is two appeals hat were heard together. Both matters are lodged pursuant to the provisions of s 97(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of a modification application DA/201400477.01 and DA/201400477.02. The modification application sough to amend conditions that required: the undergrounding of power (condition 120 & 150); and matters in relation to the provision of an electrical substation (the proposal) within an approved mixed use development at 429-449 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill (the site).

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. In relation to appeal 2016/223874 (amendment of condition 120 & 150) the final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application No. DA201400477.01 for the amendment of conditions 120 and 150 relating to overhead power cabling is approved subject to the modified conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

  3. As a consequence of order 2(b) and the modifications to Development Consent No. DA2014/00477 approved by the Court in proceedings 2016/223858, Development Consent No. DA2014/00477 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”.

  4. Each party pays its own costs of the proceedings.

  1. In relation to appeal 2016/223858 (electrical substation) the final orders to give effort to the parties agreement are

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended architectural plans and elevations referred to in paragraph 1b. of the document titled Modifications to the conditions of consent in Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification Application No. DA201400477.02 to modify Development Consent No. DA2014/00477 for the relocation of the substation within the existing building facade is determined by approving the modifications set out in Annexure “A”.

  4. As a consequence of order 2(c) and the modifications to the Development Consent No. DA2014/00477 approved by the Court in proceedings 2016/223874, Development Consent No. DA2014/00477 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”.

  5. Each party pays its own costs of the proceedings.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner

223858.16 Dickson - Annexure A (67.9 KB, pdf)

223874.16 Dickson - Annexure A (71.6 KB, pdf)

223874.16 Dickson - Annexure B (402 KB, pdf)

223874 & 223858.16 Dickson - Dulwich Hill - S34 - 205 - Substation louvre (29.9 KB, pdf)

223874 & 223858.16 Dickson - Dulwich Hill - S34 - 201 - Southwest Elevation rev 2 (251 KB, pdf)

223874 & 223858.16 Dickson - Dulwich Hill - S34 - 200 - Northeast Elevation rev 3 (227 KB, pdf)

223874 & 223858.16 Dickson - Dulwich Hill - S34 - 100 - Ground floor plan rev.3 (147 KB, pdf)

223874 & 223858.16 Dickson - Dulwich Hill - S34 - 011 - Basement 1 plan rev.4 (61.3 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1649
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1649
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

888 New Canterbury Road Pty Ltd brought an application against Inner West Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The company sought a review of a decision made by the Council to refuse an application for a development approval. The development application related to a proposal to construct a residential building on a property located at 888 New Canterbury Road, Newtown. The Council had rejected the application on the basis that the proposal did not comply with the requirements of the local environmental plan and the council’s development control plan.

The central issue before the court was whether the Council’s decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational and justified. The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the proposal. The Council contended that the refusal was justified on the basis that the proposal did not comply with the relevant planning instruments and would have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area.

The court found that the Council’s decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The court held that the proposal did not comply with the requirements of the local environmental plan and the council’s development control plan, and that the Council had properly considered the environmental impacts of the proposal. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the refusal was unreasonable or that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the proposal. The court dismissed the application and upheld the Council’s decision.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings. The court did not make any orders in relation to the development application itself, as the decision of the Council remained valid and enforceable.

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.