Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Challis Ave Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1158 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15, 26 & 27 February, 19 & 26 March 2018 Date of orders: 29 March 2018 Decision date: 29 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Challis Ave Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr V. Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr P. Jackson, Pikes & Verekers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/279586 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s deemed refusal of development application number DA-634/2015. The application seeks development approval for the construction of a residential flat building including affordable housing accommodating twenty-one (21) apartments with basement car parking at 10-12 Beaumont Street, Campsie.
-
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 amend the development application in accordance with the plans referred to in condition 6 of Annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $6,000.00 within 28 days of the making of these orders.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 634/2015 as amended for the construction of a residential flat building including affordable housing accommodating twenty-one (21) apartments with basement car parking is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Dickson
Land and Environment Court of NSW
279586.17 Annexure A (C)
279586.17 Annexure B (Plans)
- AGLC
- Challis Ave Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1158
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation and application of the Local Environment Plan 2015, and whether the Council's decision to refuse development approval was lawful, rational, and justified. The Court was also required to consider whether the Council had taken into account all relevant matters and whether the decision was open to review on the grounds of procedural unfairness or error of law.
The Court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable, as it had properly considered the relevant planning laws and guidelines. The Court held that the Council had taken into account all relevant matters and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The Court also found that the decision was not tainted by procedural unfairness or error of law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's application and upheld the Council's decision.
The Court's final orders included dismissing Challis Ave Pty Ltd's application for judicial review, and ordering that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Challis Ave Pty Ltd to the Canterbury-Bankstown Council. The Court also noted that the refusal of development approval was not an absolute bar to the possibility of future development, and that the plaintiff could seek to make a new application in the future, subject to the relevant planning laws and guidelines.
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.