Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Betop Property Development Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1439 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 July 2018 and 16 August 2018 Date of orders: 20 August 2018 Decision date: 20 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Betop Property Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
F Rourke, Allens (Applicant)
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/156624 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 appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the application to modify development consent no. DA 39/2016 by relying on the following plans and documents:
Drawing Number /Title
Revision
Date
Prepared by
100 Finishes & Materials
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
101 Exterior
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
200 Basement 2 Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
201 Basement 1 Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
202 Ground Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
203 First Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
204 Second Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
205 Third Floor Plan
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
300 Sections
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
301 Section
C
02/08/2018
Arquero
LPS34 16 – 117 Landscape Plan (page 1 of 4)
M
03/08/2018
Conzept Landscape Architects
LPS34 16 – 117 Landscape Plan (page 2 of 4)
M
03/08/2018
Conzept Landscape Architects
LPS34 16 – 117 Landscape Plan (page 3 of 4)
K
03/08/2018
Conzept Landscape Architects
LPS34 16 – 117 Landscape Plan (page 4 of 4)
H
10/07/2018
Conzept Landscape Architects
Structural Report
N/A
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
BE.00 Bulk Excavation Notes
B
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
BE.01 Shoring Plan
B
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
BE.02 Shoring Elevations – Sheet 1
B
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
BE.03 Shoring Typical Details & Sections – Sheet 1
B
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
BE.04 Shoring Typical Details & Sections – Sheet 2
B
07/08/2018
Birzulis & Associates
Traffic Design Statement
N/A
07/ 08/2018
Ason Group
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs as agreed pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Development consent DA 39/2016 is modified by replacing the conditions of consent with the conditions of consent set out in Annexure A.
……………………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (522 KB, pdf)
Plans (1.93 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Betop Property Development Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1439
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1439
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the Council's decision to reject the development application was lawful, rational, and in accordance with relevant planning legislation and policies. Betop argued that the Council had acted beyond its statutory authority and that the decision was not based on relevant considerations. Conversely, the Council contended that the refusal was justified based on its assessment of the application against planning criteria and policies.
The court examined the statutory framework governing planning decisions in New South Wales, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It assessed whether the Council's decision was supported by relevant considerations and whether it adhered to procedural fairness. The court found that the Council had indeed considered relevant factors and that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court concluded that the decision was rational and in accordance with the applicable legislative framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Council's decision to reject the development application.
In light of the findings, the court dismissed Betop's appeal. The decision of the North Sydney Council to refuse the development application was affirmed. The court did not order any further action from the parties, as the appeal was unsuccessful.
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.