Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fernside Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1088 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 November 2017, 4 December 2017, 14 December 2018 and 20 December 2018 Date of orders: 26 February 2018 Decision date: 26 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown 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: Fernside Developments Pty (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Grant Christmas, Apex Planning and Environmental Law (Applicant)
Jisella Corradini-Bird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/214615 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended set of plans:
Drawing Number
Drawing Title
Revision
Prepared by
Dated
A201
Roof/Site Plan
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A202
Basement 02
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A203
Basement 01
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A204
Stormwater transfer
C
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A205
Ground Floor Plan
C
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A206
First Floor Plan
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A207
Second Floor Plan
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A208
Third Floor Plan
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A301
Elevations
C
Mackenzie Architects International
undated
A401
Section A + B
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A402
Section C + D
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A506
Pre + Post Adaptable Units
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
A507
Finishes Schedule
B
Mackenzie Architects International
07/12/17
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs as agreed or as assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA-516/2015 to the demolition of existing structures and construction of two, four storey residential flat buildings providing a total of 92 apartments with associated landscaping, basement car parking and strata subdivision at 2-12 Harp Street and 1-5 Alfred Street, Clemton Park subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Graham Brown
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (147 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Fernside Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1088
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1088
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether the decision-making process complied with relevant statutory requirements. Fernside argued that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The Council contended that the decision was based on proper consideration of the planning scheme and other relevant factors.
The court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable. It was determined that the development did not comply with the planning scheme, which did not permit a 14-storey building in a low-density residential zone. The court also found that the Council had adequately considered the relevant statutory factors and that the decision-making process was in accordance with the law. The court emphasised that the Council had the discretion to refuse development applications that did not comply with the planning scheme and that it had exercised that discretion appropriately in this case.
The Land and Environment Court dismissed Fernside's application for judicial review. The court confirmed the Council's decision and held that it was lawful and reasonable. The court did not make any orders for costs.
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.