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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Greg Boyce (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Ms J Hewitt, solicitor (Respondent)
-(Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/355673 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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.
-
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans / documents:
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
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.
Addendum to Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by DFP Planning Consultants and dated 27 April 2017.
Letter from McLaren Engineering "Interim Parking Provision Proposed Boarding House at 22 Fisher Street, Petersham", dated 27 March 2017.
Letter from McLaren Engineering " Prelimnary Traffic Advice in Relation to Vehicular Access from Fozzard Lane" dated 5 April 2017.
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Greg Boyce v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1268
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.