Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gee N Gee Pty Limited v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1432 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 11 August 2017 Date of orders: 11 August 2017 Decision date: 11 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gee N Gee Pty Limited(Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)Representation: Mr D Creais (Solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr A Seton (Solicitor) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 32177 of 2017 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No.DA-256/2016 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Drawing No.
Drawing Name
Prepared by
Date
DA000, Revision E
Cover Sheet
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA100, Revision E
Basement 2 Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA101, Revision E
Basement 1 Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA102, Revision D
Ground Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA103, Revision D
Level 01 Floor Plan
CD Architects
20 June 2017
DA104, Revision D
Level 02 Floor Plan
CD Architects
20 June 2017
DA105, Revision E
Level 03 Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA106, Revision E
Level 04 Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA107, Revision E
Level 05 Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA108, Revision E
Rooftop Floor Plan
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA200, Revision D
East & West Elevations
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA201, Revision D
North & South Elevations
CD Architects
20 June 2017
DA300, Revision D
Section A
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA301, Revision D
Section B
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA302, Revision E
Section C
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA310, Revision D
Ramp Section
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA708, Revision B
Detailed Section Adjoining Building Interface (Sheet 1)
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA709, Revision B
Detailed Section Adjoining Building Interface (Sheet 2)
CD Architects
10 July 2017
DA900, Revision B
Typical Floor to Floor Details Section – 3.0m – 150mm Slab
CD Architects
10 July 2017
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.
Development Application No. DA-256/2016 (as amended) for the construction of a six-storey mixed use development containing two ground floor commercial tenancies, 47 residential units and two levels of basement car parking on Lots 21 and 22 in Deposited Plan 3970, otherwise known as 349-357 Beamish Street, Campsie, be approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “B”.
…………….
Rosemary Martin
Senior Commissioner
32177.17 (Annexure A) (4.74 MB, pdf)
32177.17 (Annexure B) (279 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Gee N Gee Pty Limited v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1432
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1432
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the development application should be approved, and if the council's decision to refuse the application was lawful and reasonable. Key issues included the interpretation of zoning laws, the council's assessment of environmental impacts, and the procedural fairness in handling the application. The council argued that the proposed development would not align with the area's zoning and would cause significant environmental harm.
The court found that the council's decision was not supported by proper consideration of all relevant factors, particularly the environmental impact assessment. The council had failed to adequately weigh the potential harm against the benefits of the development. The court also noted procedural errors in the council's handling of the application, which led to an unfair process for the applicant. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final order of the court was to quash the council's decision to refuse the development application and to direct the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the court's reasons. The council was required to address the identified errors and ensure a fair and lawful process in reaching a new decision.
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.