Argos Investments Pty Ltd T/as Thomas Hotels v Willoughby City Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1326


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Argos Investments Pty Ltd T/as Thomas Hotels v Willoughby City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1326
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 July 2019
Date of orders: 10 July 2019
Decision date: 10 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

The Court orders:
1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and supporting documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.
2) The appeal in respect of the property known as 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is upheld.
3) Development Application DA-2018/238 for the extension of trading hours from 3am to 4am on Monday to Saturday at ground floor level of the Chatswood Monkey Bar at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – additional early morning trading hours – existing licensed premises – conciliation conference – agreement between parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Argos Investments Pty Ltd T/as Thomas Hotels (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
C McEwan, SC (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Hatzis Cusack Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/348236
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) by the Applicant against the deemed refusal of its development application DA/17/0482. The development application seeks approval for the extension of trading hours from 3am to 4am on Monday to Saturday at ground floor level of the Chatswood Monkey Bar Hotel at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood (“the site”). The development application was lodged with Council on 30 July 2018.

  2. In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 1 July 2019. Following the conciliation, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to them. The decision agreed upon is to uphold the appeal and to grant development consent subject to conditions of consent, pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act.

  4. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the LEC Act). I have formed this state of satisfaction for the following reasons:

  1. Pursuant to the provisions of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use Development. The proposed development is permissible with consent in the zone.

  2. The development application was also referred to the New South Wales Police Force under the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Program (“CPTEP”). The matters raised by the NSW Police have been considered in the determination.

  3. The application was notified in accordance with the relevant development control plan and the submissions have been considered.

  1. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  2. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, the parties have not raised, and I am not aware of, any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the development application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EPA Act.

  3. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and supporting documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The appeal in respect of the property known as 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA-2018/238 for the extension of trading hours from 3am to 4am on Monday to Saturday at ground floor level of the Chatswood Monkey Bar at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

…………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (39.0 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Argos Investments Pty Ltd T/as Thomas Hotels v Willoughby City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1326
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1326
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Argos Investments Pty Ltd, trading as Thomas Hotels, took legal action against the Willoughby City Council. The dispute arose due to the Council's decision to deny Argos's development application for extending trading hours at the Chatswood Monkey Bar, located at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood. The applicant sought judicial review of the Council's decision and the court had to determine whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Council's decision to reject the development application was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The applicant argued that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application, had not adequately assessed the impact of the proposed extension of trading hours, and had acted without proper reasons. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the decision was reasonable and lawful, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was flawed in any way.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Council had indeed failed to properly consider the merits of the applicant's development application. The court held that the Council's decision was not based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors and that it did not provide adequate reasons for its decision. The court also found that the Council had not properly assessed the impact of the proposed extension of trading hours on the surrounding neighbourhood. As a result, the court determined that the Council's decision was not lawful, reasonable, or procedurally fair, and that it should be quashed. The court further found that the applicant's development application should be approved subject to certain conditions.

In light of the above, the court granted the applicant leave to rely on the amended plans and supporting documents, quashed the Council's decision to reject the development application, and approved the applicant's development application subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’. The court further ordered that the applicant's appeal be upheld in respect of the property at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

1) The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and supporting documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

2) The appeal in respect of the property known as 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is upheld.

3) Development Application DA-2018/238 for the extension of trading hours from 3am to 4am on Monday to Saturday at ground floor level of the Chatswood Monkey Bar at 53 Orchard Road, Chatswood is approved subject to the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

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.