Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Edjasen Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1251 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 May 2018 Date of orders: 24 May 2018 Decision date: 24 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Edjasen Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
M Draybi, Centurion Lawyers (Applicant)
J McCullan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/292680 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 Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 2017/440/1 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:
Plan Number and Description
Drawn By
Dated
Site Analysis – Drawing No. 16156 / A03 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Basement / Driveway Section – Drawing No. 16156 / A04 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Ground Floor Plan (U1 – U6) – Drawing No. 16156 / A05 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Ground Floor Plan (U6 – U16) – Drawing No. 16156 / A06 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
First Floor Plan (U1 – U5) – Drawing No. 16156 / A07 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
First Floor Plan (U6 – U16) – Drawing No. 16156 / A08A – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
First Floor Plan (U13 – U16) – Drawing No. 16156 / A08B – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Roof Plan – Drawing No. 16156 / A09 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
West & East Elevations – Drawing No. 16156 / A10 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Elevation (U1 – U5) – Drawing No. 16156 / A11 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Elevation (U6 – U12) – Drawing No. 16156 / A12 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Elevation (U14 – U16) – Drawing No. 16156 / A13 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Section A-A / F-F / G-G – Drawing No. 16156 / A14 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Sections B-B / C-C / D-D / E-E – Drawing No. 16156 / A15 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Demolition Plan – Drawing No. 16156 / A16 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Schedule of Materials and Finishes – Drawing No. 16156 / A20 – Revision D
Baini Design
27/04/2018
Storm Water Concept Plan Basement Level Sheet 1 of 2 – Drawing No. 101 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
Storm Water Plan Basement Level Sheet 2 of 2 – Drawing No. 102 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
Storm Water Layout Plan Ground Level Sheet 1 of 3 – Drawing No. 103 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
Storm Water Layout Plan Ground Level Sheet 2 of 3 – Drawing No. 104 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
Storm Water Layout Plan Ground Level Sheet 3 of 3 – Drawing No. 105 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
OSD and WSUD Details Sheet – Drawing No. 106 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
Miscellaneous Details Sheet – Drawing No. 107 – Issue E
Australian Consulting Engineers
12/04/2018
BASIX Certificate No. 769122M_02
AKV Pty Ltd
15 May 2018
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 2017/440/1 (as amended) for the demolition of existing buildings and ancillary structures on-site, consolidation of three (3) residential lots into one (1) lot and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising sixteen (16) units over basement parking providing for 24 vehicles (plus a communal car wash space), and one (1) at grade garage space on Lots 113, 114 and 93 in Deposited Plan 5296 (otherwise known as Nos. 78 to 80 Burnett Street and No. 21 Richardson Street in Merrylands) is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (399 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (4.26 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Edjasen Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1251
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Council’s decision was based on relevant considerations, whether the decision was unreasonable, and whether the Council had acted in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies. The Court was required to determine whether the Council’s decision to refuse consent was lawful and whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process.
The Court found that the Council’s decision was based on relevant considerations and that the Council had not acted unreasonably in refusing consent to the development application. The Court held that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and criteria and that the decision was not tainted by procedural errors. The Court also found that the Council’s decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and that there was no basis for judicial intervention.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for judicial review and ordered that the plaintiff pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings. The Court found that the Council’s decision was lawful and that there were no grounds for the Court to interfere with the decision. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any error of law or fact on the part of the Council and that the decision was within the Council’s statutory powers.
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.