Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Australian Development Investments Holding Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1062 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 February 2017 Date of orders: 14 February 2017 Decision date: 14 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Residential Flat building containing 70 Units, solar access, cross flow ventilation, waste storage and collection, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Australian Development Investments Holding Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (Respondent)Representation: J Wauchope, Dentons (Applicant)
M Cottom, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/305759 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA15/02765 for the staged construction of buildings comprising residential apartments and ground level business/retail units; basement car parking comprising 1145 car parking spaces; associated landscaping and communal spaces, and civil engineering works including earthworks and stormwater works, over Lot 11 Section J in DP193074, Lot 110 in DP1200460, and Lot 12 in DP1190560, also known as 223 and 225 Grange Avenue, and 999 Richmond Road Marsden Park NSW 2765 is determined by the granting of consent subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
305759.16 Hussey (C) (127 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Australian Development Investments Holding Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1062
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1062
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The plaintiff contended that the Council had failed to adequately consider several key factors, including the potential economic benefits of the development and the consistency of the decision with relevant planning policies and guidelines. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was well-founded and had been made in accordance with the applicable laws and policies.
The court examined the grounds of review, including whether the Council's decision was based on an error of law, was irrational, or failed to take into account relevant considerations. The court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed, as it had not appropriately considered the evidence and had applied an incorrect legal standard. The court concluded that the decision was unreasonable and that the Council had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Blacktown City Council to refuse the development application was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The plaintiff was awarded costs associated with the proceedings.
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.