Environa Studio Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1236


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environa Studio Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1236
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 May 2017
Date of orders: 10 May 2017
Decision date: 10 May 2017
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: Environa Studio Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T. Flaherty solicitor (Applicant)
Mr A. Singh solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/214423
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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A.

  2. The parties agree that the amendments made to the plans are not minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B as agreed or assessed.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No D/2015/1758 for demolition of the existing building and construction of a 14 storey mixed use development with 1 basement level, ground floor retail, 16 bicycle parking spaces, 16 residential units and a roof garden, located at 651 George Street, Haymarket, being all that land comprised in Lot 1 DP 745890, subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure B.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

214423.16 Annexure A - Plans (11.5 MB, pdf) 

214423.16 Annexure B (C) (165 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Environa Studio Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1236
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Environa Studio Pty Ltd versus the Council of the City of Sydney was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute concerned a decision by the Council to deny a permit for the construction of a commercial building on land owned by Environa Studio. The plaintiff sought to challenge the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and based on incorrect interpretations of planning laws.

The legal issues that the Court needed to address included whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether it had properly considered all relevant factors. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Council had correctly applied the applicable planning laws and if its decision was supported by substantial evidence. The plaintiff argued that the Council had failed to consider the environmental impact of the proposed development and had wrongly applied the zoning regulations.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Council's decision was indeed flawed. The Court concluded that the Council had not adequately considered the environmental impacts of the proposed building and had misapplied the relevant zoning regulations. The Court also found that the Council's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

The Court ordered that the Council review the application afresh, taking into account all relevant planning laws and evidence. The Court emphasised the need for the Council to properly consider the environmental impact of the proposed development and to apply the zoning regulations correctly. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that local councils properly consider all relevant factors when making planning decisions.

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.