Canberra Estates Consortium No 55 Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1498


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Canberra Estates Consortium No 55 Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1498
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 August 2017, 4 September 2017
Date of orders: 12 September 2017
Decision date: 12 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: two appeals; subdivision and associated works; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Canberra Estates Consortium No 55 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Nash, Martin Place Chambers (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr A Gadiel, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr I Lacy (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/148282 and 2017/148300
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: These are two separate but related appeals in relation to the subdivision and related works for land at Eighteenth Avenue, Austral.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeals are upheld.

  2. Development application no DA-903/2016, lodged on 22 September 2016 as amended, for

  1. demolition of existing structures;

  2. subdivision of two lots into 49 residential lots in two stages;

  3. associated roads, drainage, fill works, street tree landscaping; and

  4. construction of a temporary detention basin,

is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

  1. Development application no DA-68/2017, lodged on 9 February 2017 as amended, for subdivision of one lot into 31 Torrens title lots, including:

  1. an on-site detention basin;

  2. road construction;

  3. landscape and drainage works;

  4. easements; and

  5. removal of trees,

is determined by the grant of consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘B’.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

Annexure A (C) (632 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (C) (719 KB, pdf)

Amendments

14 September 2017 - Amendment to legal representative for the Respondent

Details
AGLC
Canberra Estates Consortium No 55 Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1498
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1498
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Canberra Estates Consortium No 55 Pty Ltd, a property developer, and Liverpool City Council, a local government body in New South Wales. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a planning approval granted by the Council to the developer for a commercial development project. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the developer challenged the Council's decision to revoke the approval.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council had the authority to revoke the planning approval under the applicable planning legislation. The developer argued that the Council's decision to revoke was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the developer had failed to meet certain conditions attached to the approval, which warranted the revocation.

The Court held that the Council did have the power to revoke the planning approval if the developer failed to comply with the conditions attached to it. The Court found that the developer had indeed breached some of the conditions, and as such, the Council's decision to revoke was lawful. The Court also held that the Council's decision-making process was not flawed, and the developer's challenge to the revocation was without merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the developer's appeal and upheld the Council's decision to revoke the planning approval.

In summary, the Court found that the Council had the authority to revoke the planning approval under the applicable legislation, and the developer had failed to meet certain conditions attached to the approval. The Court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the relevant planning legislation and the evidence presented by both parties. The final orders of the Court were that the developer's appeal be dismissed and the Council's decision to revoke the planning approval be upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.