ArtMade Architecture Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1310


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: ArtMade Architecture Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1310
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 June 2017
Date of orders: 16 June 2017
Decision date: 16 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: ArtMade Architectural Pty Ltd ACN 101 567 015 (Applicant)
Inner West Council (formerly Leichhardt Municipal Council) (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/64793
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:

Architectural Plans dated 13 June 2017.prepared by ArtMade Architectural being Plans A01.01-03 Issue 4, A02.01 Issue 4, A03.01-03 Issue 4, A04.01 Issue 4, A04.02 Issue 2, A04.03 Issue 4 and A05.01-02 Issue 4.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application D/2016/386 for the demolition of the existing dwelling in part and garage, alterations and additions to dwelling and the erection of a new garage, swimming pool and deck at the property at 431 Darling Street, Balmain, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  3. No order as to costs.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

64793.17 Chilcott (C) (468 KB, pdf)

64793.17 Chilcott - 431 Darling Street Balmain - Architectural Plans - LEC - Issue 4 (1.07 MB, pdf)

64793.17 Chilcott - Fence and Gate Detail - A - 13.06.2017 Amended (95.6 KB, pdf)

Amendments

21 June 2017 - Representation amendment

Details
AGLC
ArtMade Architecture Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1310
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ArtMade Architecture Pty Ltd versus Inner West Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from ArtMade Architecture's application for development approval concerning a proposed alteration to a heritage listed building. The council had rejected the application, leading ArtMade Architecture to seek judicial review of the council's decision.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the decision-making process adhered to the requisite legal standards. This involved examining whether the council correctly applied the relevant planning laws and development control provisions when assessing the application. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the council's decision was based on appropriate and relevant considerations and if there were any errors in the interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It determined that the council had not correctly applied the statutory provisions in making its decision. The court found that the council had failed to consider relevant statutory factors and had instead relied on incorrect information. The court held that the decision was therefore flawed and not in accordance with the law. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Inner West Council dated [specific date] be quashed. The matter was to be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's determination. The council was directed to ensure that all relevant statutory considerations were properly taken into account in the reconsideration process.

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.