Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bando Development Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1677 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 November 2017 Date of orders: 27 November 2017 Decision date: 27 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (6) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – multi-dwelling housing - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bando Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/78464 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This matter concerns an appeal by Bando Development Pty Ltd against the refusal by Cumberland Council of a development application for multi-dwelling housing at 2-8 Bando Road and 13 Tungarra Road, Girraween. Although the matter was listed for hearing on 27 November 2017, the hearing was adjourned to allow the matter to be listed for a further conciliation conference.
-
Subsequently, at the 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 orders were made on 27 November 2017 and were amended on 29 November 2017 pursuant to rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. That amendment was to Annexure A such that the plan referred to as “DA-004 ESCP and Demolition Plan Revision A” in Condition 2 of the consent conditions is now amended and referred to as being dated “27 November 2017” and not “9 March 2017”
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, as amended, are:
The applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 2 of Annexure “A”.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application Number DA 2015/556 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising 27 dwellings and basement carparking at 2-8 Bando Road, and 13 Tungarra Road, GIRRAWEEN is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexure A (C) (432 KB, pdf)
(Architectural Plans) (4.98 MB, pdf)
(Stormwater Plans) (1.98 MB, pdf)
(Landscape Plans) (327 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Bando Development Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1677
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1677
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the council had the legal authority to revoke its approval of the development application under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). It examined the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process, including whether Bando Development had been given adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the council's concerns. The court also assessed whether the council's actions were in accordance with the planning principles and whether there had been any bias or procedural unfairness in the council's decision to revoke the approval. Ultimately, the court determined that the council's actions were lawful and procedurally fair, and it upheld the revocation of the development approval.
The court found that the council had the authority to revoke its approval under the Local Government Act, and the process followed was in line with the relevant legislative requirements. The court held that Bando Development had been given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the council's concerns, and the decision-making process was fair and unbiased. Consequently, the court dismissed Bando Development's application challenging the council's decision.
ORDERS:
1. The application by Bando Development Pty Ltd is dismissed.
2. The decision of Cumberland Council to revoke its approval of the development application is upheld.
3. Costs of the proceeding to be paid by Bando Development Pty Ltd.
4. No order as to costs below Level 5.
5. No order as to costs below Level 3.
6. Each party to bear its own costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (6) 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.