Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ezra 1 Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay [2016] NSWLEC 1484 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 September, 7 October 2016 Date of orders: 07 October 2016 Decision date: 07 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: Development Application; Demolition, construction of an 8 storey residential flat building, drainage, landscape; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ezra 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Botany Bay (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr S. Beverling (Applicant)
D. Arraj, Blackstone Waterhouse Lawyers (Applicant)
R. McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/204856 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
that the appeal be upheld; and
that approval is granted to Application No. DA-15/237 for Mixed Use Development at Lot 50 in DP 1037780, 563 Gardeners Road, Mascot and comprising demolition of all existing structures on site; excavation on site to construct 1 basement level of carparking; and construction of 8 storey mixed use development containing 25 residential units and one 40m2 commercial unit, subject to conditions set out in Annexure “A” attached hereto.
…………….
R Hussey
Acting Commissioner
204856.16 - Annexure A (164 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ezra 1 Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay [2016] NSWLEC 1484
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1484
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the City of Botany Bay acted lawfully and rationally in denying the development application, and if the decision-making process was fair and transparent. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the refusal was based on appropriate considerations and if there were any procedural errors that affected the outcome. The case required an examination of the relevant planning laws and policies, and how they applied to the specific circumstances of the proposed development.
The court found that the City of Botany Bay had correctly applied the local environmental plan and zoning regulations in refusing the development application. The decision was based on substantial evidence and rational reasoning, and no procedural errors were identified. The court held that the City’s decision was not only lawful but also reasonable, given the environmental and planning considerations at play. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the City’s decision.
In summary, the Land and Environment Court ruled in favour of the City of Botany Bay, confirming that the refusal of the development application was justified. The court determined that the City had acted within its authority and adhered to the relevant planning laws and policies. No orders were made to overturn the City’s decision, and the appeal was dismissed.
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.