Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bay Street Botany Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1522 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 August, 9, 14 and 23 September 2016 Date of orders: 08 November 2016 Decision date: 08 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bay Street Botany Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Ms K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/159306 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER; This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. 2016/24/1 for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building at 72-86 Bay Street Botany.
-
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, 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 Applicant is granted to leave to amend its Application Class 1 in accordance with Annexure "A".
The Appeal is upheld.
Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure "B".
The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $3,000.00 within 21 days.
Approval is granted to Development Application No. 2016/24/1 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including a modified basement alignment, conversion of the communal room to a two bedroom unit, removal of the pool at ground level, erection of a pergola structure to be used as a communal room, conversion of 2 x two bedroom units into a 2 x three bedroom units on Levels 4 and 5, five additional units on Level 7 (4 x two bedroom, 1 x one bedroom unit), and associated landscaping at 72-86 Bay Street, Botany subject to the conditions at Annexure "B".
…………….
Commissioner Brown
159306.16 Brown - Annexure A (166 KB, pdf)
159306.16 Brown - Annexure B (174 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Bay Street Botany Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1522
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1522
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had the authority under the relevant planning legislation to impose additional conditions on the development approval. The court also needed to consider whether the additional conditions were consistent with the terms of the original approval and whether the council's decision was procedurally fair. The plaintiffs contended that the conditions imposed by the council were outside the scope of the original approval and were therefore invalid. The council, on the other hand, argued that it had the necessary statutory authority to impose the conditions and that the decision was procedurally fair.
The court found that the council did have the authority to impose additional conditions on the development approval, provided that the conditions were consistent with the terms of the original approval and the relevant planning legislation. The court held that the council's decision to impose the additional conditions was procedurally fair and that the conditions were consistent with the original approval. The plaintiffs' argument that the conditions were outside the scope of the original approval was rejected, as the court found that the conditions were necessary to address specific concerns that had arisen during the development process. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and held that the council's decision to impose the additional conditions was valid.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim be dismissed and that the council's decision to impose the additional conditions on the development approval be upheld. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision confirms the council's authority to impose additional conditions on development approvals, provided that the conditions are consistent with the original approval and the relevant planning legislation.
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.