Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Combined Projects (Rockdale) Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1330 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4, 6, 20 April, 1, 8, 22, 23 May, 20, 22 June 2017 Date of orders: 27 June 2017 Decision date: 27 June 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 (Rockdale) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr A Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/361926 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in an agreed amount of $60,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA-2016/241 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising three buildings containing 365 residential apartments, ground floor commercial/retail floor space, basement car parking and public domain area at 15-21A Bay Street, 1-11 Chapel Street, 1-3 Chapel Lane and 6-12 Lister Avenue, Rockdale NSW 2216 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
361926.16 Chilcott (C) (629 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Combined Projects (Rockdale) Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2017] NSWLEC 1330
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1330
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was unreasonable, and whether the zoning laws were correctly applied. The applicant argued that the refusal to approve the development was unjust and that the council had not adequately considered the potential economic benefits of the project. The council contended that the decision was within its discretionary powers and that the development did not comply with the zoning requirements.
The court examined the council's decision-making process and the evidence presented by both parties. It considered whether the council had taken into account all relevant factors and whether the decision was rational and justifiable. The court found that the council had not properly considered the economic benefits of the proposed development, and that the refusal was therefore unreasonable. The zoning laws were correctly applied, but the discretionary decision-making process was flawed.
The court ordered that the council's decision be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The council was directed to give proper consideration to the economic benefits of the proposed development and to make a new decision in accordance with the law. The case underscored the importance of transparent and thorough decision-making processes in local government approvals.
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.