Edjasen Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1251


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

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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)

Details
AGLC
Edjasen Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1251
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edjasen Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a planning dispute between the plaintiff, Edjasen Pty Ltd, a property developer, and the defendant, Cumberland Council, a local government authority. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to refuse consent to a development application, which involved the construction of a residential development on land owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the Council’s decision was unlawful and that the Council had failed to consider relevant planning policies and criteria.

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.