Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: DCP Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1325 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 July and 5 August 2016 Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor 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: DCP Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr G Green, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr J Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/160264 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, 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 amend Development Application DA 2015/00484 in accordance with the plans and documentation set out in condition 3 of the conditions annexed at “A” to this agreement
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 2015/00484 for the demolition of existing improvements and the construction of a 7-storey mixed use development with a commercial tenancy, 1 car parking space and 7 motorcycle spaces on ground floor, 32 boarding rooms (including a caretaker’s unit) on the upper floor levels and basement, bicycle and waste storage facilities at Lot 31 in DP 3253 being 247-249 Wardell Road, Marrickville is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “A”.
…………………
Annelise Tuor
Commissioner
160264.16 Tuor (C) (313 KB, pdf)
160264.16 Tuor - 247-249 Wardell Rd Dulwich Hill - final amended plans (6.51 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- DCP Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1325
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that required resolution included the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and heritage conservation regulations to the specific circumstances of the proposed development. The primary focus was on whether DCP's development plans complied with the statutory requirements, particularly in relation to preserving the heritage value of the site. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the council's decision to deny approval was lawful, reasonable, and supported by the evidence presented.
The court considered various legal principles and statutory provisions to reach its decision. It examined the relevant planning instruments, heritage guidelines, and the evidence provided by both parties. The court held that the proposed development did not adequately protect the heritage values of the site, and as such, the council's decision to deny approval was lawful and reasonable. The court also found that DCP had not demonstrated that the council's decision was irrational or based on irrelevant considerations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The court's final orders included the dismissal of DCP's appeal against the Inner West Council's decision. The council's refusal to grant development approval for the proposed building project was upheld, and DCP was not granted the development consent it sought. The court further directed that the parties bear their own 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.