D. R. Design (NSW) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1054


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: D. R. Design (NSW) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1054
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 January and 2 February 2018
Date of orders: 12 February 2018
Decision date: 12 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: D. R. Design (NSW) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Matt Sonter, Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Jennifer Ware, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/273727
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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA2017/0242 for demolition of existing structures, site amalgamation and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building with basement car parking at 70 – 76 Pitt Street, Mortdale is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and plans at Annexure “B”.

  3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs ‘thrown away’ in the amount of $4,500 pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

(Annexure A) (337 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (Part 1) (2.69 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (Part 2) (5.85 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (Part 3) (1.62 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
D. R. Design (NSW) Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1054
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1054
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of D. R. Design (NSW) Pty Ltd versus Georges River Council was heard. The dispute centred around a development application submitted by the plaintiff, D. R. Design, for the construction of a commercial building in a designated residential area. The council refused the application, citing non-compliance with zoning regulations, and the plaintiff sought judicial review of the council's decision. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and supported by proper consideration of relevant factors.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and whether the decision was rationally based on the evidence presented. The court had to assess if the council had adhered to the statutory requirements and if it had given adequate weight to all relevant considerations. Furthermore, the court needed to examine whether the decision was so unreasonable as to be irrational or irrational.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council had indeed followed the correct procedures and had considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The court held that the council's refusal of the development application was lawful and reasonable, given the specific zoning laws and the character of the area. The council had provided detailed reasons for its decision, which were substantiated by evidence and aligned with the statutory requirements. The court concluded that the decision was not irrational or arbitrary, and therefore upheld the council's refusal.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application for judicial review be dismissed, and that the decision of the Georges River Council remain in force. The council was also awarded 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.