Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Benmill Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1405 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 August 2018 Date of orders: 02 August 2018 Decision date: 02 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Benmill Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
J Hones, Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
P Canning, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/110276 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The application is upheld.
Pursuant to s4.55(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development consent granted by the Court in proceedings 2016/359097 for construction of a two storey addition and adaptive reuse of a warehouse to accommodate three commercial premises on the ground floor and 20 apartments above at 276-282 Devonshire Street, Surry Hills is modified in accordance with the Conditions of Consent, as set out in Annexure "A".
The Respondent’s reasons for agreement to the terms of the decision, are set out in Annexure “B”.
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (302 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (93.8 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Benmill Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1405
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1405
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council's refusal of planning approval was legally sound and whether the decision-making process was fair and compliant with relevant statutory requirements. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the statutory criteria, and whether there were any procedural errors that would render the decision invalid. The court also needed to consider whether the refusal was within the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory framework governing planning approvals and the specific provisions applicable to the proposed development. The court found that the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the statutory criteria and was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court also held that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, and no significant procedural errors were present. The court concluded that the refusal of planning approval was legally sound and within the council's discretion, affirming the council's decision.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and that the decision of the City of Sydney Council to refuse planning approval for the proposed development by Benmill Pty Ltd be upheld. The court did not award costs to either party, reflecting the complexity and significance of the issues considered.
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.