Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Applebee 29 Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1114 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 January, 22 February and 2 March 2018 Date of orders: 06 March 2018 Decision date: 06 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing factory building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applebee 29 Pty Limited (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms. J Reid (Applicant)
Mr M Bonnano (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/257933 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA201700152 for alterations and additions to an existing factory building at 2-22 Hutchinson Street and 27-33 Applebee Street St Peters.
-
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:
Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans prepared by Candalepas Associates:
Plan, Revision
and Issue No.Plan/Document
NameDate
DA-1000 Revision E
Cover Sheet
28/02/2018
DA-1001 Revision E
Site Analysis
28/02/2018
DA-1101 Revision E
Ground Floor Plan
28/02/2018
DA-1102 Revision E
Level One Plan
28/02/2018
DA-1103 Revision E
Typical Floor Plan
28/02/2018
DA-1104 Revision E
Level Four Plan
28/02/2018
DA-1105 Revision E
Roof Plan
28/02/2018
DA-1201 Revision E
Section A
28/02/2018
DA-1301 Revision E
Elevation North
28/02/2018
DA-1302 Revision E
Elevation East
28/02/2018
DA-1303 Revision E
Elevation South
28/02/2018
DA-1304 Revision E
Elevation South-West
28/02/2018
DA-1350 Revision E
Hutchinson Street Context Elevation
28/02/2018
DA-1351 Revision E
Applebee Street Context Elevation
28/02/2018
DA-1601 Revision E
Amenity Calculations
28/02/2018
DA-1851 Revision E
Development Calculations
28/02/2018
DA-1950 Revision E
Adaptable Unit Layout
28/02/2018
The appeal is upheld
Development application D/2017/00152 is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A to this agreement.
The applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away as a result of the amended plans pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $9,000 within 28 days.
……………………….
Graham Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (224 KB, pdf)
Amendments
31 May 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend Orders of 6 March 2018, correction to Annexure A at conditions (32) and (52).
- AGLC
- Applebee 29 Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1114
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework, whether the council acted in a manner that was procedurally fair, and whether the council had properly considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The court also needed to determine whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations or was otherwise unreasonable.
In its decision, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable, unlawful, or based on irrelevant considerations. The court held that the council had properly considered all relevant factors in making its decision and had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair. The court also found that the council's decision was not discriminatory, as it had treated all applicants in the same way. The court dismissed the application and affirmed the council's decision. The court's orders included that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
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.