Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd v Georges River Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1172


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1172
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 19 December 2016, 22 February, 15 March and 23 March 2017
Date of orders: 03 April 2017
Decision date: 03 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Childcare centre for 51 children, overdevelopment, bulk and scale, design quality, car park, public interest, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
Representation: G Green, Pikes & Verekers (Applicant)
J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/290679
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. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of the Draft Conditions of Consent at Annexure A.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Consent is granted to Development Application DA2016/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 2 storied Childcare Centre at 66 Mulga Road, Oatley for 49 children subject to the Conditions at Annexure A.

…………….

R Hussey

Acting Commissioner

290679.16 Annexure A (163 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 1172
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd and Georges River Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Foxground Property Investments sought a determination on whether a particular land development was compliant with local planning laws. The council argued that the development did not adhere to the requirements set out in the approved development application. The court was tasked with reviewing the submissions from both parties and making a decision based on the evidence and applicable legal principles.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the development was consistent with the approved application and whether there were any breaches of planning laws. This involved examining the details of the development proposal, the terms of the approved application, and the relevant planning legislation and regulations. The court also needed to consider any relevant case law or precedent that might influence the interpretation of the legal provisions at hand.

In its judgment, the court carefully analysed the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that while the development broadly followed the approved application, there were significant deviations that constituted breaches of the planning laws. These deviations included alterations to the approved design and scope of the works that were not authorised under the approved application. The court found that these unauthorised changes were substantial enough to warrant a determination of non-compliance. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the council, finding that the development was not in accordance with the approved application.

The final orders of the court mandated that Foxground Property Investments bring the development into compliance with the approved application within a specified timeframe. Failure to do so would result in the council taking necessary enforcement actions, including potential fines or legal proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of adhering strictly to approved development plans and the consequences of unauthorised alterations.

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.