89 Ebley Street Pty Limited v Waverley Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1344


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)
Mr M Staunton (Barrister) (Respondent)

Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/207255
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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”.

  2. The clause 4.6 variation request in respect of clause 4.3 (building height) and clause 4.4 (floor space ratio) are upheld.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
89 Ebley Street Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1344
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1344
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

89 Ebley Street Pty Limited brought a case against Waverley Council, seeking a review of the Council's refusal to grant a development application for alterations and additions to a property located at 89 Ebley Street. The dispute was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought to build a five-storey building on the site, which would have included residential apartments and a commercial space on the ground floor. Waverley Council rejected the application, citing concerns about the impact on the character of the area and the adequacy of the proposed building's design.

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.