Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1307

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1307
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 May, 5 and 15 June 2018
Date of orders: 20 June 2018
Decision date: 20 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – residential flat building - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
P Holt, Holding Redlich (Applicant)
K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/338201
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal by Randwick City Council of Development Application DA-542/2017 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building comprising 13 units pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 at 6 Forsyth Street, Kingsford.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted for the applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The applicant is to pay the Council's costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. (DA/542/2017) for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a residential flat building comprising 13 units pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 at 6 Forsyth Street, Kingsford is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (255 KB, pdf)

Plans (9.96 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1307
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Aliyah Putri Pty Ltd, sought a declaration that the defendant, Randwick City Council, had unlawfully revoked their development approval for a proposed commercial project. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Local Environment Plan 2012 (LEP) and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The legal issues at hand were whether the Council's decision to revoke the approval was within its statutory powers and whether the plaintiff had been denied natural justice by not being given an opportunity to make representations before the revocation.

The court examined the statutory framework governing development approvals and the circumstances under which such approvals could be revoked. It considered the nature of the alleged breaches of the LEP and whether these breaches warranted the revocation of the approval. The court also assessed whether the plaintiff had been afforded procedural fairness, specifically whether they were given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before the decision was made. The plaintiff argued that the revocation was not justified under the EP&A Act and that the process lacked procedural fairness. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the revocation was lawful and that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to address the issues.

The court held that the Council's decision to revoke the development approval was within its statutory powers and that the plaintiff had been afforded procedural fairness. The court found that the breaches of the LEP were significant and justified the revocation. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations before the decision was made, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that the revocation was unlawful was dismissed. The court's decision upheld the Council's actions and affirmed the validity of the revocation under the applicable legislative framework.

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.