Cloverland International Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1053


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cloverland International Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1053
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 February 2017
Date of orders: 10 February 2017
Decision date: 10 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
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: Cloverland International Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M. Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr G. Christmas, Apex Planning and Environment Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/240831
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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the plans listed in condition 1 of Annexure” A”.

Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs agreed at $4,500.00 upon execution of this agreement.

The appeal is upheld.

Development consent is granted to DA 2016/00249 for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development on the land known as 47, 49 and 51-61 Princes Highway, St Peters, legally described as Lot 1 DP 829951 subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

Annexure A Conditions (185 KB, pdf)

240831.16 Architectural Plans (16.2 MB, pdf)

240831.16 Landscape Plans - AMENDED (6.58 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cloverland International Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1053
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1053
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cloverland International Pty Ltd v Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Cloverland International, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision by the Inner West Council, the respondent, which had refused to approve a change in the use of their property. The property in question was zoned for commercial purposes, and Cloverland International sought to convert it for residential use. The council's refusal was based on the council's assessment that the proposed change was inconsistent with the local planning policies and environmental objectives.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the planning legislation and policies in assessing the proposed change of use. Cloverland International argued that the council's refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant statutory criteria and planning policies. The company contended that the proposed residential use would be more compatible with the surrounding area and would provide a better use of the property. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the refusal was justified and aligned with the objectives of the local planning policies.

The court examined the statutory framework and the relevant planning policies, focusing on the discretionary power of the council to refuse a change in use. It was noted that the council had a broad discretion in such matters, provided that the decision was not capricious or arbitrary. The court assessed whether the council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and whether its decision was supported by sufficient reasons. Ultimately, the court found that the council's decision was within its lawful discretion and was not unreasonable. The court held that the council had adequately considered the relevant policies and that the refusal was consistent with the statutory objectives and planning framework.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The council's decision to refuse the change in use was upheld, and Cloverland International's application was denied. The court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to planning policies and the council's discretion in such matters.

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.