Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Frank Lopresti Investments Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1329 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 April 2018; 9 and 25 May 2018; 1 and 7 June 2018 Date of orders: 29 June 2018 Decision date: 29 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Frank Lopresti Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A Hemmings (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Clayton Utz (Applicant)
K Gerathy, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/316349 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Frank Lopresti Investments Pty Ltd against the actual refusal by Campbelltown City Council of Development Application No. 2400/2015/DA-S for subdivision of Lot 34 in DP 262269 Epping Forest, Mississippi Crescent, Kearns into five (5) Torrens titled residential allotments.
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended development application comprising the documents set out in Schedule A.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application 240/2015/DA-S as amended, for subdivision of land described as Lot 34 in DP 262269 located at Mississippi Crescent, Kearns is approved subject to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure "A".
The documents set out in Schedule A are to be retained.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (102 KB, pdf)
Schedule A (12.0 KB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 1) (1.02 MB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 2) (363 KB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 3) (5.06 MB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 4) (7.39 MB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 5) (59.7 KB, pdf)
Schedule A (Item 6) (11.4 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Frank Lopresti Investments Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1329
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1329
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the site complied with the zoning requirements and whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws in denying the application. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the site met the criteria for development under the Campbelltown Local Environment Plan 2011 and whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on appropriate consideration of the evidence.
The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and concluded that the Council had correctly determined that the site did not comply with the zoning requirements. The court found that the Council had appropriately applied the planning laws in denying the development approval. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to zoning provisions and highlighted that the Council's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the site's compliance with the relevant planning instruments. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Land and Environment Court was upheld.
The court ordered that Frank Lopresti Investments' appeal be dismissed, and the decision of the Land and Environment Court, denying the development approval, be upheld. Costs were awarded against the respondent.
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.