Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1522


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1522
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 – 3 October 2018
Date of orders: 09 October 2018
Decision date: 09 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Solicitor:
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)

Other:
D Andrews (Director of Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd) (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2018/159786
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant has leave to rely on the following amended plans:

  1. CC02 Site Plan prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  2. CC03 Plan LGF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  3. CC04 Plan GF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  4. CC05 Plan FF prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  5. CC06 Roof Plan prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  6. CC07 North and South Elevations prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  7. CC08 East and West Elevations prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 04/09/2018

  8. CC09 Basix and North and South Sections prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018

  9. CC10 Window schedule Part 1 prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018

  10. CC11 Window schedule Part 2 prepared by Dixon Andrews Architects issue CC2 dated 21/08/2018.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application 326/16/2 seeking to modify Development Application 326/26 as follows:

  1. demolition of all existing buildings; and,

  2. amendments to the floor levels of dwelling 1 resulting from the demolition of the remaining portion of existing building; and,

  3. amendments to the floor levels of dwelling 2; and,

  4. reconfiguration of and amendments to the floor plans as detailed in the approved amended plans; and,

  5. associated changes to windows and external doors; and,

  6. removal of full height louvre privacy screens and replacement of same with fixed obscure glass to 1.6m;

  1. is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Jenny Smtihson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (144 KB, pdf)

Amended Plans (2.97 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1522
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1522
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dixon Andrews Architects Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against North Sydney Council (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking a declaration and an injunction to prevent the defendant from implementing certain planning controls that the plaintiff claimed were inconsistent with state planning legislation. The dispute centred around the defendant's decision to alter the zoning of a property owned by the plaintiff, impacting the development potential of the site. The plaintiff argued that the changes were not in accordance with the relevant planning laws, and sought to have the council's decision quashed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had acted within its statutory powers when it decided to alter the zoning of the plaintiff's property. The court was required to determine whether the council's actions were consistent with the requirements of the planning legislation, and whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the action, and if the relief sought was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the council's decision to alter the zoning of the property was indeed inconsistent with the relevant planning legislation. The council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and the plaintiff had demonstrated that it had standing to bring the action. The court held that the relief sought by the plaintiff was appropriate, and granted a declaration that the council's decision was invalid. The court also issued an injunction preventing the defendant from implementing the altered zoning controls. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the council's decision to change the zoning of the property was not in accordance with the planning legislation. The court quashed the council's decision and granted the relief sought by the plaintiff, including a declaration and an injunction. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's 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.