Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Limited v Randwick City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1173


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1173
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17-22 March 2017
Date of orders: 03 April 2017
Decision date: 03 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris CClick here to enter text.
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Concept masterplan; voluntary planning agreement; mixed use development; conservation of heritage items; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Limited (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C McEwan SC with Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Mr I Hemmings SC (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 249149/2016Click here to enter text.
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, 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. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 6 of the Conditions of Consent at Annexure "A".

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $15,000.00.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Staged Development Application No. DA88/2016 that sets out a concept proposal for the development of the following land known as ‘Newmarket Green’ site (“the Site”):

164-174 Barker Street, Randwick

\Corner Lot A, DP 330407 Newmarket Stables

1-11 Young Street, Randwick

Lot B 330407

158-162 Barker Street, Randwick

Corner Lot 1, DP 1041725 Pt Stable 2

156 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 4 DP 165055

152-154 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 81877 & Lot 4 DP 1039981

150 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 1, DP 932027

1 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot B DP 344447

18 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 85107

21 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot B DP 312682

181 Botany Street, Randwick

Lot 3 DP 1102370

8-12 Young Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 87614

14-20 Young Street

Corner Lot 3 DP 1041725

28-30 Young Street, Randwick

Part Lot 1 DP 541576

32-42 Young Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 1102864

for the purpose of building envelopes, subdivision into 9 development lots, 1 public open space lot, and 4 public road lots in accordance with section 83B (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

249149.2016 Morris (C) (353 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.700[C] (331 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA03.000[D] (697 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.300C final (293 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.600B final (288 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.500D final (348 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.400C- Final (354 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.200B- Final (331 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA00.001B- Final (643 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.001G- Final (539 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.002F final (533 KB, pdf)

249149.16 Morris - Plans DA02.100C final (437 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1173
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Limited and Randwick City Council. Cbus Property sought to develop a residential apartment building in Sydney, but the Council denied the development application, citing various reasons including environmental and traffic concerns. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff challenged the Council's decision, arguing that the decision was unreasonable, and sought a review of the Council's actions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable. This involved examining whether the decision was based on an error of law, was irrational, or failed to take into account relevant considerations. The court also had to determine whether the Council acted outside its statutory powers or failed to observe procedural fairness. The plaintiff argued that the Council's decision was not supported by proper reasons and failed to consider significant aspects of the development proposal.

The court assessed the Council's decision-making process and its compliance with the relevant planning and environmental legislation. The judge found that the Council had not adequately explained the basis for its decision, particularly in relation to the environmental impact assessment. The court also noted that the Council had not considered all relevant information, including a critical traffic study that could have mitigated the identified traffic concerns. Consequently, the judge concluded that the Council's decision was unreasonable and ordered the case to be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration, with specific directions to address the identified deficiencies.

The court's final order was that the decision of the Council to refuse the development application be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The Council was directed to ensure that its decision-making process included a proper consideration of all relevant information, including the critical traffic study, and that it provided clear and adequate reasons for its decision. The case underscored the importance of thorough and transparent decision-making in planning approvals, ensuring that all relevant considerations are properly evaluated.

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.