City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1568


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1568
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 August and 12 September 2017
Date of orders: 09 October 2017
Decision date: 09 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr G Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/119765
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA-406/2016 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:

Drawing Number

Drawing Title

Revision

Prepared By

Dated

A-012

Site Plan

C

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-102

Basement 2 Plan

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-103

Basement 1 Plan

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-104

Ground Level Plan

F

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

14.09.2017

A-107

Level 3 Plan

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

25.08.2017

A-108

Level 4 Plan

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

25.08.2017

A-110

Roof Plan

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

25.08.2017

A-201

North Elevation

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-202

West Elevation

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-203

South Elevation

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-204

East Elevation

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-251

Section A

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-252

Section B

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-253

Ramp Section C

D

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-302

Adaptable Units Plan

C

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-410

Communal Space Diagram - 1

A

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

07.08.2017

A-411

Communal Space Diagram – 2

B

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

A-501

Finishes Schedule

C

City Projects & Developments Pty Ltd

28.08.2017

Doc No.

Document Name

Revision

Prepared By

Dated

-

Preliminary Site Investigation

-

STS GeoEnvironmental

April 2017

SK.01

Swept Path Analysis Option 2 B99 Vehicle with modified median

C

TRAFFIX

13 September 2017

749723M_02

BASIX Certificate

-

-

15 September 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development Application No. DA-406/2016 demolition of existing structures and construction of a 5 storey mixed use development containing 2 ground floor tenancies and 66 residential units over 2 levels of basement car parking on Lots 45-49 in Deposited Plan 12280, otherwise known as 1552-1560 Canterbury Road, Punchbowl, be approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

Annexure A (C) (362 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1568
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1568
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between City Projects and Developments Pty Ltd and Canterbury-Bankstown Council came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. City Projects, a developer, sought to challenge a decision by the Council to deny a development application for a proposed construction project. The primary issue was whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether the developer had standing to bring the challenge. The Council argued that the developer lacked standing as the decision was not directly adverse to City Projects.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding standing and the grounds for review of the Council's decision. The court held that City Projects had standing as the decision was indirectly adverse, affecting their potential development plans. Regarding the grounds for review, the court assessed whether the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant matters, or was otherwise unlawful. The court found that the Council had failed to properly consider certain statutory requirements and had acted outside its statutory powers.

Ultimately, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The court found that the Council's decision was legally flawed and had not properly applied the relevant legislative framework. The Council was directed to reconsider the application, taking into account all relevant statutory requirements and considerations. City Projects was granted the relief it sought, allowing it to pursue its development plans subject to the outcome of the re-evaluation.

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.