Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1528


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1528
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 September 2017
Date of orders: 22 September 2017
Decision date: 22 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/64868
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documents referred to in the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application no. DA-2016/154, for the construction of an additional two storeys atop of Building D of the mixed use development approved on 10 May 2016 by Development Consent no. DA 2015/191, at 12-22 Woniora Rd Hurstville NSW is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (200 KB, pdf)

Plans (1.86 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1528
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1528
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute involved Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd, the respondent, and Georges River Council, the appellant. The central issue was whether the Council's decision to revoke a consent granted for the respondent's use of a public place was lawful. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Council had initially approved the respondent's application to use a public place for the construction of a two-storey car park. However, the approval was later revoked, leading the respondent to challenge the decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the Council's revocation of consent was a lawful exercise of its statutory powers under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Council had acted beyond its powers or if there was a procedural flaw in the decision-making process. The respondent argued that the Council's decision was arbitrary and not supported by proper reasons, while the Council contended that it had acted within its authority and followed the necessary procedures.

The court found that the Council had indeed acted within its statutory powers when revoking the consent. The decision was supported by reasons that addressed the respondent's compliance with the conditions of the original consent. The court also found that the Council had followed the correct procedural steps in making its decision. Consequently, the respondent's appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision to revoke the consent was upheld.

The court's final orders confirmed that the decision to revoke the consent was lawful and that the Council had not acted beyond its statutory powers. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the Council's costs of the appeal.

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.