Fernside Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1088


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

  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. 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Fernside Developments Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1088
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1088
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fernside Developments Pty Ltd brought a proceeding against the Canterbury-Bankstown Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Fernside sought judicial review of a decision by the Council to deny a development application for a residential apartment project. The development application was for the construction of a 14-storey building on a site zoned for low-density residential use. The Council had rejected the application on the grounds that it did not comply with the relevant planning scheme and would not be in keeping with the character of the area.

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.