Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Elpis Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1203 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 December 2015 & 21 March 2016 Date of orders: 30 May 2016 Decision date: 30 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Maston AC 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: Elpis Developments Pty Limited (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms S. Orbell, Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr P. Canning, City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 150619 of 2016 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, 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 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
In accordance with section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments in the amount of $5,000.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA 2015/449 lodged on 9 April 2015 for demolition of the existing warehouse and construction of a mixed use development including apartments, retail, parking and associated facilities at land known as 761-763 and 765 Botany Road, Rosebery NSW 2018 is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
150619.16 Maston (C) (411 KB, pdf)
Amendments
31 May 2016 - Correction in Commissioner name
- AGLC
- Elpis Developments Pty Limited v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1203
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and the merits of the Council's decision to reject the development application. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Council had correctly applied the planning legislation and whether the decision was unreasonable, taking into account the statutory criteria and any relevant policies or guidelines. The court also needed to determine if the Council had considered all relevant factors and whether the decision-making process was fair and lawful.
The court found that the Council had indeed applied the planning legislation correctly and that its decision to reject the development application was not unreasonable. The court held that the Council had considered all relevant factors and had acted within its statutory powers. The court emphasised that the decision was based on a comprehensive review of the application and was supported by the evidence and relevant planning policies. Consequently, the court dismissed Elpis Developments' appeal against the Council's decision.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal by Elpis Developments against the City of Sydney Council's decision to reject the development application be dismissed. The court also awarded costs to the Council, reflecting the outcome 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.