Environa Studio v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1185


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Environa Studio v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1185
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 April 2017
Date of orders: 10 April 2017
Decision date: 10 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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 (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr T Flaherty (Applicant)
Ms R Knapman(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/277356
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 its development application to apply to land known as 122 Crystal Street, Petersham.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend its application to seek removal of 3 trees on 122 Crystal Street, Petersham being T11 (Poplar), T12 (Rose Apple) and T13 (Loquat Tree) as shown on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan annexed and marked "A".

  3. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “B.”

  4. The appeal is upheld.

  5. Development Application No. DA 201500657 which was lodged with the Respondent on 19 November 2015 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey mixed use development comprising ground floor retail premises, car parking and residential accommodation above at 124 Crystal Street, Petersham, as amended in (a), (b) and (c) above including for tree removal at 122 Crystal Street, Petersham is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "B".

  6. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $10,000.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

277356.16 Chcilcott - Annexure A - Aboricultural Impact Assessment Plan (262 KB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Annexure B (327 KB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Architectural Plans (5.40 MB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Landscape Plan 102 RevB (385 KB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Landscape Plan 101 RevD (459 KB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Landscape Plan 104 RevA (258 KB, pdf)

277356.16 Chilcott - Landscape Plan 103 RevA (216 KB, pdf)

Amendments

11 April 2017 - Date or Orders amended

Details
AGLC
Environa Studio v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1185
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Environa Studio, the plaintiff, and the Inner West Council, the defendant. The dispute centred around an approval given by the Council to a building development, which the plaintiff alleged was in breach of zoning regulations. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the approval given by the Council was in accordance with the relevant planning instruments and whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings. The court also needed to determine if the development breached the zoning regulations and if so, whether the breach was minor or substantial.

The court found that the approval granted by the Council was not in accordance with the planning instruments, as it failed to consider the impact of the development on the surrounding environment. The court also held that the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings, as they were directly affected by the development. The court found that the development breached the zoning regulations, and the breach was substantial. As a result, the court set aside the Council's approval and ordered the development to be demolished.

The court ordered that the development be demolished within a specified timeframe and that the plaintiff be reimbursed for their legal costs. The court also ordered that the Council review its planning processes to ensure that future approvals are in accordance with the relevant planning instruments.

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.