Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1525


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1525
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 October 2018
Date of orders: 08 October 2018
Decision date: 08 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
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: Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
M Bonnano, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/378242
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. Noting that, in consideration of costs associated with the Respondent’s assessment of the amended application, the Applicant agrees to pay the Respondent’s costs in the amount of $12,000 by 6 December 2018, 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 rely on the amended plans dated 26 September 2018 (as referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”) for the purpose of the development application.

  2. The appeal is allowed.

  3. Modification application DA/2016/67.2 seeking to modify development consent DA 10.2016.67.1 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi dwelling housing development to reduce the building footprint, addition of 1 townhouse from 15 to 16 townhouses, insert habitable spaces at level 2 of selected townhouses, reduce parking numbers from 28 to 26, increase in deep soil and amendments to internal layout and dwelling mix at 106 Carlton Crescent, Summer Hill is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C)

Annexure B (Plans)

Details
AGLC
Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1525
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1525
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd (the Applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by Inner West Council (the Council). The Applicant was challenging the refusal by the Council of a development application for a site located at the corner of Church Street and Parramatta Road in Newtown. The dispute was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The key legal issues before the Court were whether the decision was unreasonable, and if the Council had failed to properly consider certain statutory provisions and relevant planning policies. The Applicant argued that the Council's decision was flawed as it did not properly consider the benefits of the proposed development to the local community, and failed to adequately address certain environmental impacts. The Council, on the other hand, submitted that the decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law.

In delivering judgment, the Court found that the decision was indeed unreasonable in certain respects. The Court held that the Council had failed to properly consider the benefits of the proposed development, and had not adequately addressed the environmental impacts as required by the relevant planning policies. The Court also found that the reasons provided by the Council for the decision were insufficient and did not demonstrate that the decision was based on the relevant considerations. As a result, the Court set aside the decision of the Council and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.

In its judgment, the Court made several orders, including that the decision of the Council be set aside, and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. The Court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the Council.

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.