Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1510


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1510
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 19 September, 10 October 2016
Date of orders: 31 October 2016
Decision date: 31 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking; 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: Fox Johnston Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Green, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00200119
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA-2016/279 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a mixed use building containing 16 boarding rooms, ground floor retail unit and off street parking at 290 Forest Road Bexley.

  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, 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. The applicant is granted leave to amend development application no DA 2016/279 to rely upon the amended plans referred to in Condition B2 of Annexure "A".

  2. The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $5,000 within 21 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development application no DA 2016/279 for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising 1 retail shop and a new affordable rental housing development with access to basement parking at 290-292 Forest Road, Bexley is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A" hereto.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

200119.16 - Annexure A (143 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Fox Johnston Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1510
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1510
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Fox Johnston Pty Ltd brought an action against Bayside Council over the validity of a notice of requirement issued by the Council under section 102A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The applicant, a property developer, sought to overturn the notice, arguing it was invalid due to procedural errors during its issuance. Bayside Council defended the notice, asserting it was issued correctly and was necessary to address a compliance issue with the planning scheme.

The court was required to determine whether the notice was invalid because of procedural deficiencies. Specifically, the court had to examine if there was a failure to provide the applicant with a copy of the notice as required by section 102A(3) of the Act. The court also needed to consider whether any procedural flaws rendered the notice invalid, including the Council's failure to provide a written statement of reasons for the notice, as required by section 102A(4) of the Act.

The court held that the notice was invalid due to procedural irregularities. It found that the Council failed to provide the applicant with a copy of the notice as required by the Act, and this procedural error was significant enough to invalidate the notice. Additionally, the court noted that the Council did not provide a written statement of reasons for the notice, which further contributed to the notice's invalidity. The court concluded that these procedural deficiencies rendered the notice invalid and ordered the notice be quashed. The court also directed that the Council provide a written statement of reasons to the applicant in compliance with the Act.

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.