G and G Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1321


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: G & G Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1321
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12, 15 June 2018
Date of orders: 27 June 2018
Decision date: 27 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: G & G Holdings Group Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/371682
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by G & G Holdings Group Pty Ltd against Inner West Council’s deemed refusal of DA201700421 lodged on 21 August 2017. The application seeks to demolish existing improvements and subdivide the land into 2 lots and construct a 2 part 3 storey dwelling house on each lot at 2 Merton Street, Petersham (Lot A/DP 384234).

  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 make, 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA201700421 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name/ Certificate

Type

Date Issued

Prepared by

Architectural Plans

A0000 CT03

Cover

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A1001 CT03

Plan: Location

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A1002 CT03

Plan: Site Analysis

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A1003 CT03

Plan: Subdivision

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2101 CT03

Plan: Lower Ground

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2102 CT03

Plan: Ground

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2103 CT03

Plan: Level 01

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2104 CT03

Plan: Roof

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2201 CT03

Plan: Area GFA

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A2202 CT03

Plan: Site Coverage

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3001 CT03

Elevation: Streetscape Merton

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3002 CT03

Elevation: East (Merton)

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3003 CT03

Elevation West

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3004 CT03

Elevation: North

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3005 CT03

Elevation: South

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3101 CT03

Section A

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3102 CT03

Section B

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A3103 CT03

Section C

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A7001 CT03

Schedule: Door

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A7002 CT03

Schedule: Window

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

A8101 CT03

Finishes Board

08 June 2018

ees lifestyle Pty Ltd

DA-L101 B

Landscape Plans

04.05.18

Canvas Landscape Architects

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant’s clause 4.6 request, prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd and dated June 2018, for variation of the Floor Space Ratio development standard under the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.

  3. The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000 GST exclusive in full and final payment within 28 days.

  4. Development Application No. DA201700421 for subdivision of land into 2 Torrens Title allotments, construct a new 2 part 3 storey dwelling house on Lots A & B including a garage at Lot B, at 2 Merton Street, Petersham, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “C”.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (4.74 MB, PDF)

Annexure B (1.66 MB, PDF)

Annexure C (127 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
G and G Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1321
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1321
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were G and G Holdings Group Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Inner West Council, the defendant. The dispute centred around the legality of certain council decisions regarding a development application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff challenged the council's decisions on the basis that they were invalid and should be quashed, arguing that the council failed to follow proper procedures when approving the development application.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the council's decisions were procedurally fair and whether they adhered to the relevant statutory provisions. The plaintiff contended that the council did not provide adequate notice of the development application and failed to allow for sufficient public comment. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the decisions were valid and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any procedural flaws.

In examining the case, the court found that the council's decisions were indeed flawed. The court held that the council had not provided the required notice to the public, which was a critical procedural requirement. Additionally, the court determined that the council's approval process did not allow for proper public consultation, further undermining the validity of the decisions. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decisions regarding the development application. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in council decisions and underscored the need for adherence to statutory requirements to ensure transparency and public participation in the decision-making process.

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.