Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1037 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 February 2018 Date of orders: 02 February 2018 Decision date: 02 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: Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Vasili Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Roslyn McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/290098 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 make, 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 appeal is upheld.
Approval is given to the modification of the development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court on 28 November 2016 in Land and Environment Court proceedings No. 2016/169255 for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of two existing allotments into one and construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising one ground floor commercial tenancy and 20 residential units over 3 levels of basement car parking at 297-299 Canterbury Road, Canterbury being Lots 35 and 36 Section A in DP 2785, in accordance with the conditions in Annexure A hereto.
As a consequence of order 2, the development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court on 28 November 2016 in Land and Environment Court proceedings No. 2016/169255 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B hereto.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (59.0 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (130 KB, pdf)
Amendments
05 February 2018 - Correction made to legal representation.
- AGLC
- Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1037
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1037
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of local planning policies and the application of relevant legislative provisions to the specific circumstances of the proposed development. The primary contention was whether the council had the authority to refuse the development application on the grounds that it did not comply with the local planning policies, and whether the developer had adequately demonstrated that the proposed alterations were in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements.
In its decision, the court found that the council had not acted beyond its statutory powers in denying the development application. The court held that the council's decision was consistent with the applicable planning policies and that the developer had failed to demonstrate that the proposed alterations met the necessary criteria for approval. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to local planning policies and the need for developers to provide sufficient evidence to support their applications. Consequently, the court dismissed Dyna Constructions' appeal, affirming the council's decision.
The final orders of the court included the dismissal of Dyna Constructions' appeal, with the court confirming the decision of the Canterbury-Bankstown Council to deny the development application. The court also noted that costs of the proceedings were to be borne by Dyna Constructions.
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.