Dimora Projects Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1215


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dimora Projects Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1215
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 30 March and 13 May 2016
Date of orders: 01 June 2016
Decision date: 01 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris 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: DIMORA PROJECTS (Applicant)
BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Mr D Baird, Baird Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr T O’Connor, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s):152602/2016
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, 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 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend development application 14-1461 and to rely upon the amended plans listed in condition 2.1.1 of Annexure "A".

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to s.97B of Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  4. Development Application 14-1461 for the demolition of existing structures construction of 26 units in a medium density development at 8-10 Hambledon Road Quakers Hill and Lot 2 Quakers Hill Parkway, Quakers Hill (being Lot 2191 DP809694, Lot 2201 DP816432 and Lot 2 DP785043) is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

152602.16 Morris (C) (243 KB, pdf)

152602.16 Morris_Architectural - 8-10 Hambledon Road, Quakers Hill Incl. Swept Paths 1.06... (8.66 MB, pdf)

152602.16 Morris_Landscape Plan Lot 2 & 8-10 Hambledon Road, Quakers Hill (1.66 MB, pdf)

152602.16 Morris_Plans (104 KB, pdf)

152602.16 Morris_Stormwater Plans Lot 2 & 8-10 Hambledon Road, Quakers Hill Issue B (2.56 MB, pdf)

152602.16 Morris_Swept Paths 1.06.16 8-10 Hambledon Road, Quakers Hill (2.62 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Dimora Projects Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1215
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between Dimora Projects Pty Limited and Blacktown City Council. The developer, Dimora Projects, sought a declaration that the council had acted unlawfully in denying a development application for a project at a particular site. The dispute also involved an injunction to prevent the council from enforcing certain conditions attached to the approval of an amended development application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had correctly exercised its statutory powers in denying the initial development application and whether the council had acted lawfully in imposing certain conditions on the amended development application. The court had to determine if the council's actions were in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and if there was any procedural unfairness in the council's decision-making process.

In its judgment, the court found that the council had not acted unlawfully in denying the initial development application, as the decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and objectives. The court also determined that the conditions imposed on the amended development application were lawful, as they were reasonably related to the approval of the development and did not constitute a penalty. The court further held that there was no procedural unfairness in the council's decision-making process. Consequently, the developer's claims for a declaration and an injunction were dismissed.

The court ordered that Dimora Projects Pty Limited pay the costs of the proceedings to Blacktown City Council. The developer was also ordered to pay additional costs incurred by the council in responding to an interlocutory application. The court did not grant the developer's application for a declaration or an injunction, thereby upholding the council's decisions regarding the development application and the conditions imposed on the amended development application.

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.