Baragroup Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1489


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baragroup Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1489
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 July, 10 & 25 August 2017
Date of orders: 05 September 2017
Decision date: 05 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building; 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: Baragroup Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D Creais, Bartier Perry (Applicant)
Ms V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/82919
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application DA/635/2016 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 5 dwellings (including affordable rental housing dwellings) and parking for 5 vehicles at 42 Judge Street, Randwick.

  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. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans listed in condition 1 of the conditions attached and marked “A”.

  2. The Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s97B as agreed in the sum of $   5830.00 by 22 September 2017.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Consent is granted to the development application DA/635/2016 for demolition of existing structures at 42 Judge Street, Randwick and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 5 dwellings (including affordable rental housing dwellings) and parking for 5 vehicles subject to the conditions of consent in annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

82919.17 Brown (C) (424 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Baragroup Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1489
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1489
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baragroup Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council, Baragroup brought an action against the Council, seeking a declaration that a particular area of land was exempt from the operation of a zoning instrument, and that the Council had acted beyond its statutory powers in imposing a condition on a development approval that required the developer to retain a portion of the land for community use. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the land in question was exempt from the zoning instrument, and if so, whether the condition imposed by the Council on the development approval was valid. The court needed to determine the scope of the exemption and whether the Council's condition was within its statutory authority.

The court found that the land was not exempt from the zoning instrument, as the exemption did not extend to the specific area in question. The court also held that the condition imposed by the Council was within its statutory powers, as it was a valid exercise of the Council's discretion to impose conditions on development approvals to ensure that the development is in accordance with the planning scheme. The court rejected Baragroup's argument that the condition was beyond the Council's powers, as it was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

The court made a declaration that the land was not exempt from the zoning instrument and that the condition imposed by the Council was valid. The court did not grant the relief sought by Baragroup, and the decision was in favour of the Council. The court's decision provides clarity on the scope of exemptions from zoning instruments and the extent of the Council's discretion to impose conditions on development approvals.

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.