Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cliff Rd Developments Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1290 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1, 10, 24 May 2018; 7 June 2018 Date of orders: 15 June 2018 Decision date: 15 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh 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: Cliff Rd Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
D Arraj, Blackstone Waterhouse Lawyers (Applicant)
C Drury, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/339411 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application DA/1127/2016 by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Number
Rev
Title
Author
Date
A0.01
G
Drawing List/ Development Summary
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.01
D
Basement 3
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.02
D
Basement 2
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.03
E
Basement 1
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.04
G
Lower Ground Floor Plan
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.05
I
Upper Ground Floor Plan
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.06
E
Level 1-2
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.06B
B
Level 3
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.07
F
Level 4
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.08
D
Level 5 – Communal Open Space
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A2.09
E
Roof Plan
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A3.01
F
North & South Elevations
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A3.02
F
East & West Elevation
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A4.01
E
Section A-A
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A4.02
E
Section B-B
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A4.05
A
Ramp Section
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A4.10
A
Section C-C
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A4.11
A
Section D-D
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A6.04
C
Views from Sun
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A6.05
C
Views from Sun
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A7.01
F
Cross Ventilation / Solar Access Analysis
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A7.02
D
Unit Schedule
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A7.03
E
Communal Open Spaces
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
A7.04
F
Deep Soil Area Calculation
Aplus Design Group
11.05.2018
101
J
Landscape Plan Lower Ground – Ground
Site Image
10.05.2018
102
D
Landscape Plan Roof
Site Image
10.05.2018
501
J
Landscape Details
Site Image
10.05.2018
601
A
Landscape Sections
Site Image
10.05.2018
Pursuant to section 8.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as a lump sum of $12,500.00.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA/1127/2016 for the demolition of existing structures, subdivision and construction of a five storey residential flat building above basement level parking at 33-35 Cliff Road, Epping, is approved subject to the conditions set out hereto in Annexure A.
……………………….
Peter Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (325 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (8.03 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Cliff Rd Developments Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2018] NSWLEC 1290
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the decisions made by the City of Parramatta Council were unreasonable, and whether the applicant's development application should have been approved. The applicant argued that the Council's decisions failed to adequately consider the merits of the proposed development, including the potential benefits to the area and compliance with planning policies and guidelines. The Council, on the other hand, contended that the decisions were reasonable and properly considered the relevant factors, including potential environmental impacts and community concerns.
The court found that the City of Parramatta Council's decisions to refuse the development application were not unreasonable. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and determined that the Council had adequately addressed the relevant planning and environmental criteria in making their decisions. The court found that the Council's decisions were based on a proper consideration of the merits of the proposed development and were in accordance with the relevant planning policies and guidelines. Consequently, the applicant's challenge to the Council's decisions was dismissed.
The court made orders dismissing the application for judicial review and affirming the decisions of the City of Parramatta Council to refuse the development application. The applicant was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the proceedings.
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.