Cairich Property Development Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1080


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cairich Property Development Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2018] NSWLEC 1080
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 February 2018
Date of orders: 14 February 2018
Decision date: 14 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon SC
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: Cairich Property Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Strathfield Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Vasili Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Angelo Bilias, Strathfield Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/249174
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. Approval is given to the modification of the development consent DA2016/195 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house containing (52) rooms over one (1) level of basement parking at 10 Homebush Road, Strathfield, Lot 10 in DP 2461 by the deletion of Condition DACC050 and the imposition of the new Condition DACC050 attached at Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. As a consequence of order (1), the development consent granted (Annexure B) is now subject to the modified condition set out in Annexure A hereto.

……………………….

Susan Dixon

Senior Commissioner

Annexure A (9.72 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (9.53 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cairich Property Development Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2018] NSWLEC 1080
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1080
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cairich Property Development Pty Ltd versus Strathfield Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the council's refusal to grant the applicant, Cairich, a development approval for a residential apartment complex on a specified site. Cairich contested the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not supported by proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to grant the development approval was lawful and whether the council had acted within its statutory powers. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council had properly exercised its discretion under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, and if it failed to take into account relevant considerations. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. It was determined that the council had failed to properly consider several relevant planning policies and had instead relied on irrelevant considerations. The court held that the decision was not only unreasonable but also procedurally unfair, as the principles of natural justice were not observed during the decision-making process. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.

In its orders, the court quashed the council's decision to refuse the development approval and directed the council to reconsider the application in light of the court's reasons. The council was mandated to properly consider all relevant planning policies and to ensure that its decision-making process complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

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.