Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Affinity Property Investment Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1756 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 January 2018 Date of orders: 10 January 2018 Decision date: 10 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and the construction of a shop top housing development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Affinity Property Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Ms E Fleming, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr D Loether, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/81774 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA No. 2016/1073 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a shop top housing development at 31-33 Atchison Street, Wollongong,
-
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 following further amended plans:
Drawing No. and Issue
Title
Prepared by
Date
a2102 Issue Z1
Floor Plan – Basement 1
RFA Architects
23 November 2017
a2103 Issue Z1
Floor Plan – ground floor
RFA Architects
23 November 2017
a2105 Issue Z1
Floor Plan – Level 2
RFA Architects
23 November 2017
a2106 Issue Z1
Floor Plan – Level 3
RFA Architects
23 November 2017
The appeal is upheld;
The Applicant's cl.4.6 written request to vary the clause 8.6 within the Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 which relates to building separations within Zone B3 Commercial Core is upheld;
Deferred development consent is granted to DA No. 2016/1073 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a shop top housing development comprising a twelve storey building comprising 1 retail/business premises, a child care centre with places for 61 children on the ground floor, 44 residential apartments, and two levels of basement car parking on Lot 1 DP 782358 and Lot 1 DP 152994, on land known as 31-33 Atchison Street, Wollongong, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'A'.
……………………….
Commissioner G Brown
Annexure A (C) (421 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (4.13 MB, pdf)
Amendments
01 February 2018 - Corrections made to Year of Orders (2018)
- AGLC
- Affinity Property Investment Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1756
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1756
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the plaintiff's application to acquire the land. Affinity contended that the council had acted outside its statutory powers by disregarding relevant statutory criteria and failing to consider the merits of the application. The council argued that its decision was within the scope of its statutory authority and that the application was properly refused on the grounds of public benefit. The court needed to determine whether the council's decision was lawful and whether there was any merit in the plaintiff's claim for compensation.
In its judgment, the court held that the council had indeed exercised its discretion outside the statutory framework provided by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The court found that the council had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria and had placed undue emphasis on non-statutory factors. The judge ruled that the refusal was therefore invalid and ordered that the application be reconsidered in light of the statutory criteria. The court also found in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of compensation, determining that the council's refusal had caused a financial loss to Affinity. The judge ordered the council to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the value of the land and related costs.
The Supreme Court made a declaration that the council's refusal to approve the land acquisition was invalid and ordered the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the statutory criteria. The court also awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,500,000, representing the value of the land and associated costs, to be paid by the council to the plaintiff.
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.