Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1540


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1540
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 July, 31 August & 5 September 2017
Date of orders: 21 September 2017
Decision date: 21 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of two six storey residential flat buildings; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D Tyrrell, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/148379
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is aa appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA2016.276 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two six storey residential flat buildings containing forty apartments over basement and at grade parking and six townhouse dwellings at 381 Liverpool Road, Ashfield.

  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. The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition A(1) of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number DA2016.276 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two (2) x six (6) storey residential flat buildings containing forty (40) apartments over basement and at grade parking and six (6) townhouse dwellings at 381 Liverpool Road, Ashfield is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $7,500.00 in full and final payment of all costs in this matter. This amount is to be paid the same day that the Court makes these orders.

……………………….

Commissioner G Brown

Annexure A (471 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1540
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council, the dispute involved a challenge to a decision made by the Inner West Council regarding the refusal of a development application for a property at Ashfield. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with resolving the matter. The plaintiff, Ashfield 381 Pty Ltd, sought to overturn the council's decision to deny its development application for the property. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the council's decision was lawful, whether it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory framework, and whether there were any procedural errors or unreasonableness in the decision-making process.

The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant planning policies applicable to the case, as well as the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The plaintiff argued that the council's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based on the evidence. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was lawful and based on proper consideration of the relevant factors and evidence. The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that there were no procedural errors in the decision-making process. The council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and was in accordance with the relevant statutory framework and planning policies.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's challenge to the council's decision was not successful, and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's application. The court further found that the council's decision was lawful and that the plaintiff's application should be dismissed with costs. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, as well as a detailed examination of the relevant statutory provisions and planning policies. The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the council.

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.