Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 89 Ebley Street Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1344 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 June 2017 Date of orders: 30 June 2017 Decision date: 30 June 2017 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: 89 Ebley Street Pty Limited (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr M Sonter (Applicant)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr M Staunton (Barrister) (Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/207255 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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely upon the following amended architectural plans, landscape plan and BASIX certificate referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.
The clause 4.6 variation request in respect of clause 4.3 (building height) and clause 4.4 (floor space ratio) are upheld.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 572/2015 for proposed demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a new mixed use building with ground floor retail (excluding use) and residential apartments above, rebuilding of Cock ’n ’Bull Hotel (excluding fit-out but including use of hotel) and associated parking and landscaping on lots 1 & 2 in DP826800 and Lots 18-21 & 23 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
…………….
Commissioner J Smithson
207255.16 Smithson (C) (372 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- 89 Ebley Street Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1344
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1344
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and justified. This involved examining the compatibility of the proposed development with the local planning policies and the relevant development control provisions. The court had to determine if the Council's concerns about the development's impact on the area's character and the adequacy of the design were valid and whether these concerns outweighed any potential benefits of the proposed development.
The court held that the Council's decision was lawful and reasonable. The judge found that the proposed development did not align with the local planning policies, which aimed to preserve the character of the area. The design of the building, particularly its height and massing, was considered inappropriate for the site and would adversely affect the surrounding neighbourhood. Additionally, the court was not persuaded by the applicant's arguments regarding the adequacy of the design. The Council's concerns about the development's impact on the character of the area and the adequacy of the design were deemed valid and sufficient to justify the refusal of the development application.
The court dismissed the application for review, upholding the Council's decision. The applicant was not granted permission to build the proposed five-storey building on the site at 89 Ebley Street. The court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the character of the area and ensuring that developments are compatible with local planning policies.
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.