Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gelder Architects v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1155 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 January 2016 Date of orders: 26 April 2016 Decision date: 26 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Tuor C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gelder Architects (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Mr M Staunton, instructed by Mr T Sattler of Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Dr S Berveling instructed by Ms K Morrin of City of Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10920 of 2015 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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Annelise Tuor
Commissioner of the Court
10920 of 2015 Tuor (O)(26.04.16) (70.2 KB, pdf)
10920 of 2015 Tuor (C) (386 KB, pdf)
10920 of 2015 Tuor_Annexure A_Plans Rev L Consent 5 pages (1.37 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Gelder Architects v City of Sydney Council [2016] NSWLEC 1155
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether the council's decisions were lawful and whether they had properly considered relevant planning policies in making their determinations. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had acted within its statutory powers and if it had adhered to the required procedural fairness. The court also had to assess whether the council's decisions were supported by sufficient evidence and whether the architects' rights to procedural fairness had been respected.
The court found that the council had indeed failed to properly apply relevant planning policies and had not considered all relevant factors in making its decisions. It was held that the council had acted beyond its statutory powers and had not provided adequate reasons for its decisions, thus breaching the principles of procedural fairness. The architects' application for review was therefore successful, and the council's decisions were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court’s directions.
As a result of the court's findings, the council was ordered to reconsider the architects' development application in light of the court's determinations. The council was directed to ensure that all relevant planning policies were properly applied and that the decision-making process adhered to legal and procedural standards. The court's judgment provided clear guidelines for the council to follow in its reassessment of the development application, ensuring that the architects' rights and the integrity of the planning process were upheld.
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.