Botany Bay Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for Serenity 2 Unit Trust v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1458


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Botany Bay Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for Serenity 2 Unit Trust v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1458
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 August 2017
Date of orders: 24 August 2017
Decision date: 24 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Botany Bay Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for Serenity 2 Unit Trust (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr M Ayache, One Group Legal (Applicant)
Ms K Morrin, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/153609
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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2016/1051 for demolition of an existing warehouse building and the construction of a part 4, part 5 storey residential flat building containing 35 apartments, commercial premises facing Euston Road and roof top communal open space located at 71-91 Euston Road, Alexandria, being all that land comprised in Lot A DP 330011, Lot B DP 330011, Lot 48 Sec 5 DP 1881, Lot 49 Sec 5 DP 1881, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

153609.17 Chilcott (C) (666 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Botany Bay Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for Serenity 2 Unit Trust v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1458
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1458
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, Botany Bay Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for the Serenity 2 Unit Trust, brought an action against the defendant, the Council of the City of Sydney, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's decision to refuse an application for development consent regarding a proposed change of use for a property in Darlinghurst. The plaintiff intended to use the property, which was originally zoned for commercial purposes, for residential purposes instead. The defendant council had refused the application on the basis that it did not comply with the development standards outlined in the local environmental plan.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant council had acted lawfully and rationally in refusing the plaintiff's application for development consent. The plaintiff argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that the council had failed to consider certain relevant factors in making its decision. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that it had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the relevant legislative framework and had given appropriate weight to the relevant considerations.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the plaintiff's application was unreasonable. The court held that the council had failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed residential use on the character of the surrounding area, which was a relevant consideration under the local environmental plan. Additionally, the court found that the council had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a requirement under the relevant legislation. As a result, the court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the defendant council to refuse the plaintiff's application for development consent be set aside, and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff in relation to the proceedings.

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.