Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Akrivi Investments Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council [2015] NSWLEC 1145 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 25 March 2015 Date of orders: 13 May 2015 Decision date: 13 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of mixed use shop top housing development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Akrivi Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Marrickville Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Paul Jayne, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
Joe Strati, Marrickville Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 11045 of 2014
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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Commissioner Pearson
11045 of 2014 Pearson (Orders) (156 KB, pdf)
Amendments
13 September 2017 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend attached orders of 13 May 2015 to reflect approved plans - reference to 30 dwellings corrected to 25 dwellings.
- AGLC
- Akrivi Investments Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council [2015] NSWLEC 1145
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to approve the development was justified under the relevant planning legislation. This involved an examination of whether the developer had met the criteria set forth in the planning laws and whether the council had acted within its statutory powers. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the council's reasons for refusal were lawful, rational, and supported by proper evidence. A secondary issue was the interpretation of specific clauses within the planning framework that pertained to zoning, environmental impact, and community impact assessments.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed justified. The reasoning hinged on the fact that the proposed development did not align with the zoning provisions of the local planning scheme, as it exceeded permissible uses for the designated area. Additionally, the environmental and community impact assessments provided by the developer were deemed insufficient to overcome the potential adverse effects on the area. The council's reasons for refusal were found to be rational and based on proper evidence. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision, ruling that Akrivi Investments' appeal was without merit.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's refusal to approve the development stood. The court's ruling affirmed the council's authority to enforce local planning laws and highlighted the importance of compliance with zoning and impact assessment requirements in development applications. The developer was left to either amend the proposal to align with the planning regulations or seek alternative sites that complied with the zoning provisions.
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.