Applebee 29 Pty Limited v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1114


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

  1. 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.

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans prepared by Candalepas Associates:

Plan, Revision
and Issue No.

Plan/Document
Name

Date

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

  1. The appeal is upheld

  2. Development application D/2017/00152 is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A to this agreement.

  3. 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).

Details
AGLC
Applebee 29 Pty Limited v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1114
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applebee 29 Pty Limited brought an application against the Inner West Council, seeking to overturn a decision made by the council to refuse the company's application for a liquor licence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The company contended that the council's decision was unreasonable, unlawful, or based on irrelevant considerations, and that it had discriminated against the applicant by refusing to consider its application in the same way as other applications.

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.