Boyce v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1561


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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Greg Boyce (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
- (Applicant)
Mr Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law, (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00183267
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, 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 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Boyce v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1561
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1561
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boyce and Inner West Council were involved in a legal dispute that was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The case centred around a refusal by the Council to grant Boyce a development approval for a property located in Sydney's Inner West. Boyce sought to develop the property into a mixed-use commercial and residential building, but the Council refused the application on the grounds that it did not align with the relevant planning policies and would cause unacceptable environmental impacts.

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.