CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1154


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2017] NSWLEC 1154
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 12, 20 December, 16, 21 February, 7 March 2017
Date of orders: 27 March 2017
Decision date: 27 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a residential apartment building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: CPG Projects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms A Spizzo, Landerer & Company (Applicant)
Ms J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/270150
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No 437/2016 for the retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a pt 3 and pt 4 storey residential apartment building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units with on-grade car parking at 139 Good Street Rosehill.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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. Development Application No 437/2016 for retention of an existing local heritage item and construction of a Part 3/ Part 4 storey residential apartment building comprising 2 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units with on-grade car parking subject to conditions attached as Annexure 'A'.

  3. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans attached as Annexure B:

  1. Architectural plans prepared by IDRAFT Architects and dated 1 March 2017;

  1. Cover Page – Drawing No. A000, Issue C

  2. Site Plan – Drawing No. A001, Issue C

  3. Demolition Plan - Drawing No. A001A, Issue C

  4. Ground Floor Plan – Drawing No. A002, Issue C

  5. First Floor Plan – Drawing No. A003, Issue C

  6. Second Floor Plan - Drawing No. A004, Issue C

  7. Roof Plan - Drawing No. A005, Issue C

  8. Materials Schedule and Southern Elevation - Drawing No. A006, Issue C

  9. Sections and Elevations Plan - Drawing No. A007, Issue C

  1. BASIX Certificate 793328M dated 3 February 2017

  2. Landscape Plans

  1. Drawing No. 2805 – IC of 6 dated 27 February 2017

  2. Drawing No. 2805 – 2C of 6

  3. Drawing No. 2805 – 3C of 6

  4. Drawing No. 2805 – 4C of 6

  1. Schedule of Works (Heritage) by NBRS Architecture dated 3 March 2017

  2. Waste Management Plan dated 20 February 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, pursuant to Section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979 in the sum of $ 18,000 to be paid within 60 days.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

Commissioner of the Court

270150.16 Brown Annexure A (C) (337 KB, pdf)

270150.16 Annexure B (Plans) (8.19 MB, pdf)

Amendments

27 March 2017 - Plans attached

Details
AGLC
CPG Projects Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2017] NSWLEC 1154
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between CPG Projects Pty Ltd and the City of Parramatta Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred on the alleged failure by the City of Parramatta Council to grant planning approval for a proposed development project. CPG Projects Pty Ltd claimed that the council's decision was unreasonable and that there was a breach of procedural fairness.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the council's decision to deny the development approval was lawful and whether there was procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law relating to planning approvals, procedural fairness, and the scope of judicial review. Specifically, the court examined whether the council had followed the necessary procedures, exercised its discretion correctly, and whether there was any bias or error in the decision-making process.

The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and there was no breach of procedural fairness. The council had followed the correct procedures and exercised its discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant considerations. The court also held that there was no evidence of bias or any procedural error that would render the decision invalid. The court's reasoning was grounded in the applicable statutory framework and the principles of administrative law, particularly the grounds for judicial review.

The final orders of the court were that the council's decision to deny the planning approval was upheld, and CPG Projects Pty Ltd's application for judicial review was dismissed with costs to be paid by CPG Projects Pty Ltd. This outcome meant that the council's decision stood, and CPG Projects Pty Ltd was not granted the planning approval it sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.