Chandos Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1479


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chandos Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1479
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 September 2018
Date of orders: 07 September 2018
Decision date: 07 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Chandos Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
N Sandstrom, Mills Oakely (Applicant)
J M Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/19889
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. 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 and documents as referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent contained at Annexure “A”.

  2. Pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed, that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application for development consent.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application no. DA 17/0132 seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures, and construction of a five storey residential flat building containing 32 dwellings with two basement car parking levels at 477 – 481 President Avenue, Kirrawee is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (182 KB, pdf)

***********

Details
AGLC
Chandos Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1479
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1479
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chandos Group Pty Ltd versus Sutherland Shire Council, the Federal Court was presented with a dispute regarding the council's refusal to approve the construction of a proposed development on land owned by Chandos Group. The matter concerned the application of planning laws, specifically whether the council's decision to deny approval for the development was lawful and in accordance with relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to reject the development application was justified under the planning legislation. The court was required to assess whether the council acted within its statutory powers, followed the correct procedures, and made its decision based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the decision was unreasonable, and whether any errors made by the council were material to the outcome.

In its judgment, the court held that the council's decision to reject the development application was not based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors and was, therefore, unreasonable. The court found that the council had failed to adequately address a key issue raised by the applicant, and that this omission rendered the decision unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The court further ordered that the council was to ensure that its decision-making process was in full compliance with the statutory requirements, and that any further decision on the development application be made after proper consideration of all relevant factors. The court did not impose any costs order.

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.