Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Environa Studio Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2018] NSWLEC 1481 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 September 2018 Date of orders: 07 September 2018 Decision date: 07 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Environa Studio Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Canada Bay Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
S Hale, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
J Ede, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/292337 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:
Plan No.
Title
Prepared by
Date
030 Rev H
Site Plan
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
100 Rev C
Floor Plan – Basement
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
101 Rev H
Floor Plan – Level 1
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
102 Rev H
Floor Plan – Level 2
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
103 Rev H
Floor Plan – Level 3
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
104 Rev H
Floor Plan – Level 4
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
110 Rev H
Roof Plan
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
120 Rev H
Section AA
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
121 Rev H
Section BB
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
122 Rev C
Section CC
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
123 Rev A
Section DD
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
124 Rev A
Section DD Sheet 2
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
130 Rev H
South West Elevation
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
131 Rev H
North East Elevation
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
132 Rev H
North West Elevation
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
133 Rev H
South East Elevation
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
901 Rev H
3D Perspectives Sheet 1
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
902 Rev H
3D Perspectives Sheet 2
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
903 Rev C
3D Perspectives Sheet 3
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
904 Rev C
3D Perspectives Sheet 4
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
910 Rev H
Shadow Diagrams June 21 – Plan View
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
913 Rev H
Solar Access Study – Communal Living Room Glazing – 21 June
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
914 Rev H
Solar Access Study – Communal Open Space – 21 June
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
930 Rev F
BASIX Commitments
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
980 Rev H
Area Calculation Summary – Sheet 1
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
981 Rev H
Area Calculation Summary – Sheet 2
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
982 Rev H
Area Calculation Summary – Sheet 3
Environa Studio
16 July 2018
L 501 Rev B
Specifications and Plant Schedule
ELKE
25 May 2018
L 502 Rev B
Details
ELKE
25 May 2018
L 101 Rev E
North Eastern Zone
ELKE
25 May 2018
L 102 Rev E
Western Zone
ELKE
25 May 2018
L 103 Rev A
Level 2 and 3 Balconies
ELKE
25 May 2018
L 104 Rev A
Rooftop Planters
ELKE
25 May 2018
C1 Rev E
Coversheet and notes
ACOR
13 July 2018
C2 Rev E
Stormwater Management Plan – Basement
ACOR
13 July 2018
C3 Rev E
Stormwater Management Plan – Level 1 (Sheet 1)
ACOR
13 July 2018
C4 Rev E
Stormwater Management Plan – Level 1 (Sheet 2)
ACOR
13 July 2018
C5 Rev E
Stormwater Management Details Sheet No. 1
ACOR
13 July 2018
C6 Rev E
Stormwater Management Details Sheet No. 2
ACOR
13 July 2018
C7 Rev E
Stormwater Management Details Sheet No. 3
ACOR
13 July 2018
C8 Rev E
Stormwater Management Details Sheet No. 4
ACOR
13 July 2018
C9 Rev E
Stormwater Management Details Sheet No. 5
ACOR
13 July 2018
Sheet 1
Plan Showing Selected Detail & Levels Over No. 19 Bibby Street, Chiswick
Norton Survey Partners
28 August 2018
PTC-001 Rev 1
Ground Clearance Assessment
PTC Consultants
12 July 2018
Clause 4.6 request for an exception to the height of buildings development standard
Sutherland & Associates Planning
7 September 2018
The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $7,000 within 28 days.
The Applicant’s clause 4.6 written request to vary the height limit is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA2017/0234 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction a new four (4) storey boarding house comprising 31 boarding rooms (including a caretaker’s room) at 19 Bibby Street, Chiswick, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (521 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Environa Studio Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2018] NSWLEC 1481
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1481
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Local Environment Plan 2013 and the Council's application of the relevant policies in determining the merits of the development proposal. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the Council's decision to refuse development approval was rational, lawful, and in accordance with the statutory framework governing development applications. The developer argued that the Council had misapplied the planning policies, thereby making the decision unreasonable.
The court examined the Council's reasons for refusing the development approval, assessing whether they were supported by the evidence and aligned with the statutory criteria. The decision was scrutinised for procedural fairness, ensuring that the developer had a fair opportunity to present its case. Ultimately, the court found that the Council had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies. The decision was deemed rational and lawful, as it was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and the statutory requirements. The developer's application for a declaration of invalidity was dismissed.
The Supreme Court ordered that the developer pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. This included costs associated with the preparation of the case, the hearing, and any subsequent appeals. The court emphasised that the developer's claim was without merit and had not succeeded in establishing any grounds for invalidating the Council's decision.
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.