Atelier One Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1446


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Atelier One Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2016] NSWLEC 1446
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 6 September 2016
Date of orders: 06 September 2016
Decision date: 06 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: Additional external stairs to private open space area in residential flat building, amenity, visual/acoustic privacy, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Atelier One Pty Ltd Applicant)
Ryde City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G Christmas, Apex Planning & Environment Law (Applicant)
Mr B Stephen, City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/169103
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, 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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification application No. MOD2016/0031 lodged with the Respondent on 25 February 2016 to modify Development Consent No. LDA 2013/0260 granted by the Respondent on 26 June 2014 for the demolition of all buildings, construction of 5 residential flat buildings comprising 179 dwelling and basement parking for 218 vehicles at 1-9 Allengrove Crescent, 116A-122B Epping Road and 259-263 Lane Cove Road, North Ryde is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. As a consequence of paragraph 2.2, Development Consent No. LDA No. 2013/0260 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Hussey

169103.16 Hussey (C) - Annexure A (2.55 MB, pdf)

169103.16 Hussey (C) - Annexure B (1.06 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Atelier One Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2016] NSWLEC 1446
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1446
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Atelier One Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council, the dispute was between a property developer, Atelier One, and the local council, City of Ryde Council. The conflict arose due to the developer's application for a development approval to construct a building on a specific property. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The developer sought a review of the council's decision to deny their development application, arguing that the decision was flawed and not in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the council's decision was legally valid, and whether the council's reasons for refusing the development application were sufficient. The developer contended that the council's decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and that the council had failed to consider all relevant factors. The council, on the other hand, argued that the decision was lawful and that the developer's application did not comply with the local planning laws.

The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was based on proper consideration of the relevant factors. The developer's argument that the council had failed to consider certain factors was rejected, as the court found that these factors had indeed been taken into account. The court also found that the council's reasons for refusing the development application were sufficient and in accordance with the relevant legislation. As a result, the court dismissed the developer's application for review.

In conclusion, the court upheld the council's decision to refuse the development application, finding that it was lawful and properly reasoned. The developer's application for review was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the developer. The council's decision stands, and the developer must seek alternative options for the proposed development.

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.