Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Cash Warwick Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1725 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 December 2017 Date of orders: 15 December 2017 Decision date: 15 December 2017 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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cash Warwick Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Ms K Marginson, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr M Cottom, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/ 225201 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans prepared by Dickson Rothschild (Project No 15-084 - dated 23 November 2017):
DA-002 - Summary Sheet (Revision 9)
DA-200 - Basement 3 (Revision 4)
DA-201 - Basement 2 (Revision 8)
DA-301 - Section A-A (Revision 8)
DA-302 - Section B-B (Revision 8)
DA-705 - Ramp Details (Revision 8).
The application to the Court made on 24 July 2017 pursuant to s 96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent no. DA99/2016 for the demolition of all dwellings, construction of 1 x 7-storey and 1 x 5-storey residential flat buildings (67 units in total), basement parking and strata subdivision on Lots 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 in DP 1999 known as 832-836 King Georges Road and 51 Connells Point Road, South Hurstville is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure A.
As a consequence of the above, Development Consent no. DA99/2016 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.
……………………….
J Smithson
Commissioner of the Court
225201.17 Annexure A and B_SlipRule (C) (282 KB, pdf)
Amendments
12 February 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, amend orders of 15 December 2017
- AGLC
- Cash Warwick Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1725
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1725
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues addressed by the court involved the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), particularly concerning the authority and discretion of the Council in granting development approvals. The plaintiff argued that the Council had exceeded its statutory powers and that the approval was obtained through improper means, including misrepresentations and procedural flaws. The Council contended that the approval was lawful and that the plaintiff's claims were without merit.
The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law to determine whether the Council's actions were in line with the law. It found that the Council had exercised its statutory powers correctly and that the approval process was compliant with the required legal standards. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentation and procedural errors were not substantiated by the evidence presented. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the Council.
The court's decision was definitive, affirming the validity of the development approval granted by the Georges River Council. The plaintiff's application to set aside the approval and seek damages was rejected. The orders of the court included dismissing the plaintiff's claims in their entirety and awarding costs to the defendant.
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.