Bureau SRH Pty Ltd trading as Bureau SRH Architecture v City of Ryde Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1345


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Bureau SRH Pty Ltd trading as Bureau SRH Architecture v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1345
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 June 2018
Date of orders: 05 July 2018
Decision date: 05 July 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: Bureau SRH Pty Ltd trading as Bureau SRH Architecture (Applicant)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Peatman, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Applicant)
P Kapetas, Council of the City of Ryde (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/384741
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following amended plans, contained at Annexure "A":

#

Plan/Report No.

Plan/Document

Revision for Final Amended DA Submission

Architectural Plans

1.

Plan DA 000

Title Page

Revision 4 dated 05/04/2018

1.

Plan DA 001

Demolition

Revision 2 dated 15/08/2017

2.

Plan DA 002

Subdivision

Revision 2 dated 15/08/2017

3.

Plan DA 100

Site Plan/Site Analysis

Revision 4 dated 05/04/2018

4.

Plan DA 101

Basement Level 03 + 02

Revision 3 dated 05/04/2018

5.

Plan DA 102

Basement Level 01 + Ground Floor

Revision 6 dated 21/06/2018

6.

Plan DA 103

Level 1 + Level 2

Revision 5 dated 06/06/2018

7.

Plan DA 104

Level 3 + Level 4

Revision 5 dated 06/06/2018

8.

Plan DA 105

Level 5 + Level 6

Revision 6 dated 21/06/2018

9.

Plan DA 106

Roof Plan + Post Adaptable Layouts

Revision 4 dated 05/04/2018

10.

Plan DA 120

Shadow diagram winter solstice

Revision 2 dated 21/06/2018

11.

Plan DA 121

Shadow diagram spring equinox

Revision 2 dated 21/06/2018

12.

Plan DA 150

Area calculation/control table

Revision 4 dated 21/06/2018

13.

Plan DA 200

Streetscape elevations

Revision 4 dated 05/04/2018

14.

Plan DA 201

Elevations

Revision 5 dated 21/06/2018

15.

Plan DA 202

Elevations

Revision 3 dated 06/06/2018

16.

Plan DA 301

Sections

Revision 4 dated 05/04/2018

17.

Plan DA 401

Views from the Sun

Revision 2 dated 21/06/2018

18.

Photomontage

View from corner of Pope & Smith Street

Revision C, dated 06/06/2018

19.

Photomontage

View from Top Ryde Shopping Centre

Revision C, dated 06/06/2018

20.

Photomontage

View from Smith Street

Revision C, dated 06/06/2018

21.

Photomontage

View from Pope Street

Revision C, dated 06/06/2018

22.

Photomontage

View from Pope Street

Revision C, dated 06/06/2018

23.

Plan 16218 DA

1 of 2 and 2 of 2

Landscape Plan

Revision C dated 16/08/2017

Further documents

24.

Amended Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Michael Brewer of Willana Associates

April 2018

25.

Amended Clause 4.6 Subdivision prepared by Michael Brewer of Willana Associates

April 2018

26.

Urban Design statement prepared by Rohan Dickson of AE Design Partnership

May 2018

Stormwater Plans

27.

Drawing No. C00.01

General Notes

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

28.

Drawing No. C01.01

Roof Drainage, sediment erosion control plan

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

29.

Drawing No. C02.01

Stormwater Drainage Plan

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

30.

Drawing No. C03.01

Basement 1 Stormwater Drainage Plan

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

31.

Drawing No. C03.02

Basement 2 Stormwater Drainage Plan

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

32.

Drawing No. C03.03

Stormwater Details Sheet 1

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

33.

Drawing No. C03.04

Stormwater Details Sheet 2

Issue B, dated 21 December 2016

Survey Plan

34.

Survey Plan prepared by Norton Survey Partners

27 May 2016

  1. The appeal in respect of Lot 4 DP 5558 and Lot 1 DP 178305, being 2 Smith Street and 10 Pope Street, Ryde, is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA-2017/0014 for the for the demolition of the existing building and construction of new premises comprising of residential and commercial tenancies, is approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure "B".

  3. The Applicant is pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amended plans pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment at 1979 as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

Edward Blakely

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (14.4 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (653 KB, pdf)

Amendments

10 July 2018 - Correction to date of orders

Details
AGLC
Bureau SRH Pty Ltd trading as Bureau SRH Architecture v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1345
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Bureau SRH Pty Ltd trading as Bureau SRH Architecture and City of Ryde Council was brought before the Federal Court. Bureau SRH alleged that City of Ryde Council had breached the Australian Consumer Law by providing misleading information regarding the need for a heritage overlay permit for a proposed development in Sydney. The case centred around the validity of the alleged misleading conduct and whether it amounted to a breach of the statutory provisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the information provided by the Council was misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law and whether the Council's conduct constituted a breach of the statutory provisions. The court had to determine if the Council's provision of information regarding the need for a heritage overlay permit constituted misleading or deceptive conduct and whether such conduct was actionable under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court held that the Council's provision of information did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. The court found that the Council's conduct was not misleading as it accurately conveyed the need for a heritage overlay permit. The court concluded that the Council's conduct did not breach the statutory provisions as it was not misleading or deceptive. The court dismissed Bureau SRH's claims and awarded costs to the Council.

The court ordered that Bureau SRH pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. The court did not grant any relief to Bureau SRH and dismissed its claims in their entirety. The court found that the Council's conduct did not breach the Australian Consumer Law and that Bureau SRH's claims were without merit. The court's decision provides clarity on the scope of the statutory provisions and the circumstances in which conduct may be considered misleading or deceptive.

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.