Greg Boyce v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1268


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Greg Boyce v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1268
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 8 and 29 March and 27 April 2017
Date of orders: 29 May 2017
Decision date: 29 May 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a 6 storey boarding house - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Greg Boyce (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Ms J Hewitt, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
-(Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/355673
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application DA. DA201600529 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 6 storey boarding house containing 48 rooms for lodgers and 3 on-site manager's accommodation rooms with associated carparking for 12 cars at 22 Fisher Street, Petersham.

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans / documents:

  1. The following architectural plans prepared by Tank and dated 9 April 2017 set out in the below table

100 Issue C

Basements 1 & 2

9/4/17

Tank

120 Issue E

Ground Floor Plans

9/4/17

Tank

130 Issue D

Plans Level 1 and 2

9/4/17

Tank

140 Issue D

Plans Level 3 & 4

9/4/17

Tank

150 Issue D

Plans Level 5

9/4/17

Tank

160 Issue D

Roof Plans and 3D view

9/4/17

Tank

200 Issue C

Fisher St Elevation Schedule of Finishes

9/4/17

Tank

201 Issue D

Fozzard Lane Elevation Section A

9/4/17

Tank

202 Issue C

Eastern Elevation & 3 D views

9/4/17

Tank

203 Issue D

Western Elevation & 3D views

9/4/17

Tank

204 Issue C

Section B

9/4/17

Tank

600 Issue B

Typical Bulkhead Layout

17/3/17

Tank

601 Issue C

Western Façade Details

9/4/17

Tank

300 Issue B

FSR Calculations

25/4/17

Tank

  1. Stormwater Drainage Plans prepared by J & M Group: H5500 (Rev B), H5501 (Rev B), H5503 (Rev B), H5504 (Rev B), H5505 (Rev B), H5506 (Rev B), H5507 (Rev B) dated 22 March 2017 and H5502 (Rev D) and H5511 (Rev B) dated 12 April 2017.

  2. Addendum to Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by DFP Planning Consultants and dated 27 April 2017.

  3. Letter from McLaren Engineering "Interim Parking Provision Proposed Boarding House at 22 Fisher Street, Petersham", dated 27 March 2017.

  4. Letter from McLaren Engineering " Prelimnary Traffic Advice in Relation to Vehicular Access from Fozzard Lane" dated 5 April 2017.

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away in respect of the amended plans / documents which are agreed in the sum of $ 7,500.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application DA. DA201600529 (“Application”) for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 6 storey boarding house containing 48 rooms for lodgers and 3 on-site manager's accommodation rooms with associated carparking for 12 cars at 22 Fisher Street, Petersham is approved subject to the conditions annexed to this agreement as Annexure "A".

…………….

G Brown

Commissioner of the Court

355673.16 Brown (C) (297 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Greg Boyce v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1268
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Greg Boyce and the Inner West Council was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Greg Boyce, a property owner, sought to challenge the Inner West Council’s decision to refuse a development application for a proposed residential apartment building on his property. Boyce argued that the refusal was unlawful and that the council’s decision was based on incorrect assessments and inadequate consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning laws and policies, including the Inner West Local Environment Plan 2012. Boyce contended that the council had failed to properly assess the proposal under the relevant planning instruments and had not considered all the necessary factors in reaching their decision. Additionally, Boyce argued that the refusal of his development application was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence presented.

The court examined the council’s decision-making process and the evidence upon which it was based. The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider certain key planning policies and had not properly assessed the merits of Boyce’s proposal in light of the overall objectives of the planning scheme. The court also noted that the council’s decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and that there were errors in the assessment of the proposal. Consequently, the court determined that the council’s decision to refuse the development application was unlawful and invalid.

The court set aside the Inner West Council’s decision to refuse Boyce’s development application. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court’s directions, including a requirement for the council to properly consider all relevant planning policies and provide a detailed and reasoned decision. The court also ordered that Boyce’s costs of the proceeding be paid by the council.

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.