Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Affordable Habitats Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1631 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 October & 3 November 2017 Date of orders: 09 November 2017 Decision date: 09 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – demolition of commercial building and construction of student accommodation - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Affordable Habitats Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr A Simpson, Sydney City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/196264 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This matter concerns an appeal following the expiry of the deemed refusal period concerning a development application for demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of a four storey student accommodation (boarding house) and associated landscaping works at 142 Carillon Avenue, Newtown. After a conciliation conference held in the matter, 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 given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:
Drawing Number
Drawing Name
Date
A101 Rev 8
Ground Floor
27.10.17
A102 Rev 8
Level 1
27.10.17
A103 Rev 8
Level 2
27.10.17
A104 Rev 8
Level 3
27.10.17
A105 Rev 8
Roof Plan
27.10.17
A201 Rev 8
Elevations
27.10.17
A202 Rev 8
Elevations
27.10.17
A301 Rev 8
Sections
27.10.17
The appeal is upheld.
Development application D/2016/1759 lodged on 14 December 2016 seeking approval for the demolition of existing commercial building and construction of a four storey student accommodation building (boarding house) and associated landscaping works including tree removal is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
196264.17 Gray (C) (463 KB, pdf)
196264.17 Gray - Plans (2.41 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Affordable Habitats Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1631
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1631
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Council's decision to deny the permit was lawful and if there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process. The developer argued that the Council's decision was arbitrary and not based on the relevant planning and environmental considerations. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the developer's proposal did not align with the City's planning objectives and environmental policies.
The court examined the relevant planning laws, policies, and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Council's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the planning and environmental implications of the proposed development. The court held that the Council's decision was lawful, and there were no procedural errors. The developer's arguments did not sufficiently rebut the Council's findings, and the decision was therefore upheld.
The final orders of the court included dismissing the developer's application for judicial review and affirming the Council's decision to deny the permit. The developer was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.
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.