Belmore 88 Pty Ltd v City of Canterbury-Bankstown

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1286


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Belmore 88 Pty Ltd v City of Canterbury-Bankstown [2017] NSWLEC 1286
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 2 June 2017
Date of orders: 05 June 2017
Decision date: 05 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 and 5 storey shop top housing development; 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: Belmore 88 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Canterbury-Bankstown (Respondent)
Representation: Mr A Knox, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 16/359087
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development application DA 566/2014 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 and 5 storey shop top housing development at 717-727 Canterbury Road, Belmore

  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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA 566/2014 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 and 5 storey shop top housing development containing 141 units, 2 x retail tenancies, 7 x commercial tenancies over 3 levels of basement car parking at 717-727 Canterbury Road, Belmore is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A” hereto, of which condition 2 refers to the Voluntary Planning Agreement at Annexure “B”.

…………….

Commissioner

G Brown

359087.16 Annexure A (565 KB, pdf)

359087.17 Annexure B (VPA) (510 KB, pdf)

Amendments

06 June 2017 - Uploaded Annexure B

08 June 2017 - 'Conciliation Conference' entered

06 December 2017 - Pursuant to rule 36.17 of the UCPR, the 'slip rule', final version of the VPA agreement uploaded (Annexure 'B') to replace draft version previously uploaded.

Details
AGLC
Belmore 88 Pty Ltd v City of Canterbury-Bankstown [2017] NSWLEC 1286
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Belmore 88 Pty Ltd versus City of Canterbury-Bankstown, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Belmore 88 Pty Ltd sought to challenge a decision made by the City of Canterbury-Bankstown in relation to a development application. The primary focus of the dispute was whether the council had acted within its legal authority when it approved a development proposal that differed from the terms previously communicated to the applicant.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of relevant planning legislation and the procedural fairness owed to the applicant by the council. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's approval of a different development proposal constituted an error of law and whether the applicant was afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the new proposal. Additionally, the court examined whether the council's decision-making process adhered to the statutory requirements for transparency and fairness.

The court held that the council had indeed acted beyond its legal authority by approving a development proposal that significantly deviated from the terms previously communicated to the applicant. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness, noting that the applicant should have been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the new proposal. The court found that the council's decision-making process was flawed, leading to an unjust outcome for the applicant. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

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.