George and Irene Pty Limited v Cumberland Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1402


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: George & Irene Pty Limited v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1402
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 August 2018
Date of orders: 03 August 2018
Decision date: 03 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: George & Irene Pty Limited (ACN 601 924 449) [Formerly St George Development Pendle Hill Pty Limited (ACN 601 924 449)] (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Briggs, DG Briggs & Associates (Applicant)
P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/187920
Publication restriction: Nil

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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA155/2017 lodged on 13 April 2017 pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 seeking consent for the demolition of existing structures, consolidation of 6 lots into 1 lot and the construction of a 4 storey mixed use development with 5 ground floor business premises, comprising 50 residential units including 15 affordable rental housing units, a childcare centre over basement parking providing 125 car spaces at 515-519 Great Western Highway and 1-3 Ettalong Rd, Greystanes, is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (C)

Details
AGLC
George and Irene Pty Limited v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1402
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1402
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George and Irene Pty Limited versus Cumberland Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. George and Irene Pty Limited, a property developer, brought an appeal against the Cumberland Council's decision to refuse a development application for the construction of a multi-story residential building. The developer sought to build on a property zoned for low-density residential use but claimed the site had special characteristics that warranted an exception to the zoning rules.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the site possessed the exceptional circumstances required to warrant a departure from the existing zoning and whether the council's decision was legally sound. The court also needed to consider whether the developer's proposal would align with the broader objectives of the local planning framework.

The court found that the site did not exhibit the exceptional characteristics necessary to justify a departure from the zoning rules. It ruled that the site's features, while unique, did not reach the threshold for the exceptional circumstances required to override the established zoning. Furthermore, the court determined that the council's decision was not flawed and was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws and policies. The court concluded that the proposal would not contribute positively to the broader planning objectives and would potentially cause undue harm to the surrounding area's character and fabric.

As a result, the court dismissed the developer's appeal, upholding the Cumberland Council's decision to refuse the development application. The court's decision was based on the assessment that the site did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances and that the proposal was inconsistent with the planning policies designed to protect the area's character. The court's ruling stands as a reminder of the importance of adhering to zoning laws and the limited circumstances under which exceptions can be granted.

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.