Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Astoria Capital Pty Ltd ATF The Delta Funds Family Trust v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1527 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 October 2018 Date of orders: 08 October 2018 Decision date: 08 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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: Astoria Capital Pty Ltd ATF The Delta Funds Family Trust (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
A Epstein, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/47657 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended drawings dated 19 September 2018 (as referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”) for the purpose of the development application.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application 10.2017.1108.1 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of one commercial tenancy and a boarding house with 30 rooms at 1455 Botany Road and 1 and 3 Hastings Street, Botany NSW is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $22,000 within 28 days.
……………………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (C)
Annexure B (Plans)
Amendments
11 October 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend orders of 08 October 2018 so that Order 4 (3) now reads as follows:
(3) Development application 10.2017.1108.1 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of one commercial tenancy and a boarding house with 30 rooms at 1455 Botany Road and 1 and 3 Hastings Street, Botany NSW is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".
- AGLC
- Astoria Capital Pty Ltd ATF the Delta Funds Family Trust v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1527
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1527
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was based on lawful considerations and whether there were any procedural defects that rendered the decision invalid. The applicants argued that the council had failed to consider relevant planning policies and had acted outside its authority. The council, on the other hand, contended that the decision was lawful and properly based on the relevant legislative framework and planning policies.
The court found that the council's decision was based on a lawful consideration of the relevant planning policies and was not flawed by any procedural errors. The court held that the council had correctly assessed the application against the criteria set out in the planning scheme and had not acted beyond its authority. The applicants' argument that the council had failed to consider certain policies was rejected as the court found that the council had adequately addressed all relevant matters. As a result, the court dismissed the applicants' appeal and upheld the council's decision.
The court's decision was definitive, and no further appeal was possible. The order of the court was that the applicants' application for judicial review was dismissed, and the council's decision to refuse the development application was upheld. This outcome confirmed the council's authority to make such decisions within the bounds of the planning legislation and policy framework.
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.