Bexley Village Pty Limited v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1174


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bexley Village Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1174
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 and 29 March 2018
Date of orders: 06 April 2018
Decision date: 06 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Blakely AC
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: (Applicant)
(Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Anthony Whealy, Mills Oakley Solicitors (Applicant)
Mr John Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/300153
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 rely upon the amended plans and documents referred to in condition 2 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The clause 4.6 written request prepared by Dickson Rothschild (as amended) dated 3 April 2018 to vary the Height of Buildings control under clause 4.3 of Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 is upheld.

  3. The applicant is to pay the Council's costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $8,000 within 28 days.

  4. The Appeal is upheld.

  5. Development application no. DA/2017/373 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising of a ground level commercial tenancy, a rooftop terrace and five levels of residential units including 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units as well as basement car parking at 1 – 3 Harrow Road, Bexley (as amended) is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and on the basis of the Applicant’s offer to enter into a voluntary planning agreement as set out in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Blakely

Annexure A (207 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.00 MB, pdf)

Annexure C (Cl4.6) (796 KB, pdf)

Annexure D (Plans) (14.3 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bexley Village Pty Limited v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1174
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bexley Village Pty Limited sought judicial review of a decision by the Bayside Council, which had refused their application to construct a car wash on their property. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the council had acted irrationally and outside the bounds of its powers in rejecting the application, while the council maintained that the refusal was justified on grounds of environmental and planning policy.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning laws and environmental policies. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the council had appropriately exercised its discretion and whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The applicant also challenged the council's consideration of certain policy and planning documents, arguing they were not properly taken into account.

The court found that the council's decision was indeed lawful and rational. It held that the council had appropriately exercised its discretion in light of the evidence and the relevant planning laws and policies. The court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council had acted irrationally or outside the bounds of its powers. The council's consideration of the policy and planning documents was also found to be adequate. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge.

The orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be dismissed, with the applicant to pay the council's costs of the proceeding.

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.