Equity Site Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1585

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Equity Site Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1585
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 9 September 2016, 10, 25 October 2016, 23, 30 November 2016
Date of orders: 07 December 2016
Decision date: 07 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and construction of mixed commercial/residential development with basement parking – strata subdivision - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Equity Site Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mrs L Finn, Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Mr G Christmas, Apex Planning & Environment Law (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00188533
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of application No.DA201600172 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of mixed commercial/residential development with basement parking and strata subdivision at 110-112 Addison Road Marrickville.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Plan and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

DA000-B

Standard Abbreviation 1

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA000-C

Standard Abbreviation 2

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA001-B

View 01 – Addison Road Perspective

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA002-B

View 02 – Addison Road Perspective

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA010-I

Basement Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA011-K

Ground Floor Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA012-I

Level 1 Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA013-I

Level 2 Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA014-I

Level 3 Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA015-H

Loft Level

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA016-D

Roof Plan

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA103-C

Pre/Post Adaptable Units – Level 3

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA104-C

Pre/Post Adaptable Units – Level 1 & 2

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA150-D

Addison Road Elevation - North

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA151-D

Illawarra Road Elevation - West

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA152-D

South Elevation

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA153-D

East Elevation

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA160-C

Section AA

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA161-D

Section BB

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA162-C

Section CC

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA163-E

Section DD

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA165-C

SEPP 65 Detail Facade

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

DA167-A

1 & 3 Illawarra Section

21.10.16

AN+A Architects

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 1

Existing Trees and Tree Management Plan

01/11/16

BioDesign

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 2

Landscape Plan – Ground Level

01/11/16

BioDesign

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 3

Landscape Plan – Level 1

01/11/16

BioDesign

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 4

Planting Plan – Ground Level

01/11/16

BioDesign

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 5

Planting Plan Level 1

01/11/16

BioDesign

AR-LP01-B – Sheet 6

Sections and Elevations

01/11/16

BioDesign

  1. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs agreed at $4,000.00 upon execution of this Agreement.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to DA201600172 for demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a shop top housing development with basement parking and strata subdivision at 110-112 Addison Road, Marrickville subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

188533.16 Brown (C) (328 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Equity Site Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1585
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1585
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Site Holdings Pty Ltd sought to challenge the decisions of the Inner West Council in relation to the approval of a development application. The applicant argued that the council's decisions were flawed and that the approval of the development application was not in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The case involved the interpretation of the planning laws and the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court included whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws in approving the development application, and whether the applicant's procedural rights had been breached. The court considered whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had followed the required procedures in making its decisions.

The court held that the council had correctly applied the planning laws and that there had been no breach of procedural fairness. The court found that the council's decision to approve the development application was lawful and that the applicant had not established any grounds for overturning the council's decision. The court emphasised the importance of following the correct procedures in decision-making and the need for planning authorities to ensure that their decisions are in accordance with the law.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims and awarded costs to the respondent. The court made no orders for costs on an interlocutory basis. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council's decision had caused it any significant harm or loss, and therefore did not make any orders for damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.