Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Boyce v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1561 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 September, 18 October, 15 November 2016 Date of orders: 22 November 2016 Decision date: 22 November 2016 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: Greg Boyce (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Staunton (Applicant)
- (Applicant)
Mr Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law, (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00183267 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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:
Drawing No. and Revision
Plan / Certificate Type
Date
DA101 Issue B
Lower Ground Floor Plan
26-07-2016
DA102 Issue B
Upper Ground Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA103 Issue B
First Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA104 Issue B
Second Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA105 Issue B
Third Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA106 Issue B
Fourth Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA107 Issue B
Fifth Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA108 Issue B
Sixth Floor Plan
04-10-2016
DA109 Issue C
Roof Terrace Plan
21-10-2016
DA200 Issue D
North Western Elevation
South Eastern Elevation
21-10-2016
DA201 Issue C
South Western Elevation
21-10-16
DA202 Issue C
North Eastern Elevation
21-10-2016
CC203 Issue A
North Western Elevation - Internal
21-10-2016
CC210 Issue E
Section A-A
21-10-2016
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs agreed at $3,000.00 upon execution of this Agreement.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA201600206 for alterations and additions to an approved boarding house at 244-244A Wardell Road, Dulwich Hill subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
…………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner
183267.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (97.6 KB, pdf)
183267.16 - Amended plans (3.99 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Boyce v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1561
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1561
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and environmental regulations. The primary focus was on whether the Council's refusal was lawful and whether Boyce's proposed development complied with the applicable planning schemes and environmental protection laws. The court also needed to determine whether the Council had adequately considered all relevant factors and whether the decision was unreasonable.
The court found that the Council's refusal to grant Boyce the development approval was lawful. The judges concluded that the proposed development did not align with the local planning policies and would result in unacceptable environmental harm. The court determined that the Council had considered all relevant factors and that the decision was not unreasonable. Boyce's appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision was upheld.
The Land and Environment Court dismissed Boyce's appeal and confirmed the decision of the Inner West Council. Boyce was not granted the development approval for the proposed mixed-use building. The court's decision was based on the finding that the proposed development did not comply with the local planning policies and would cause unacceptable environmental impacts. The court upheld the Council's decision as lawful and reasonable.
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.