Gross Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1232


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gross Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1232
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 March & 30 April 2018
Date of orders: 15 May 2018
Decision date: 15 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: APPEAL – application to modify development consent - coffee roasting production - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gross Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
R Bennett, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/300945
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against a deemed refusal by Bayside Council concerning a modification application 2015/113/2 to delete condition 1 of development consent 2015/113 for the use of the premises as light industry (coffee roasting).

  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 amend Section 96(1A) Modification Application dated 24 February 2017 and to rely upon the following amended plans, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan

Author

Dated / Received by Council

Floor Plans & Elevations

Dwg No: 2018-02

Revision A

2018-02 Roof Plan and First Elevation

2018-03 Floor Plans

2018-04 Elevation

ID & D Pty Ltd

Dated: 17.04.2018

Landscape Plan

Botanica

Dated: 13.04.2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Section 96(1A) Modification Application dated 24 February 2017 to modify Development Consent No 15/133 for use for coffee roasting production, warehousing, fit-out and signage is determined by approving the modification as set out in Annexure “B”.

  3. As a consequence of part (c) above, Development Consent No 15/133 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “C” (including the attached Plan of Management dated April 2018).

  1. The Court notes the agreement of the parties that the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s reasonable costs thrown away in relation to dealing with the amended plans in the agreed amount of $15,000 within 60 days.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (982 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (49.3 KB, pdf)

Annexure C (273 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Gross Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1232
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gross Pty Ltd brought an application against Bayside Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The application was made to challenge a decision by the Council to deny Gross Pty Ltd a development permit for the construction of a commercial building on a designated site. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and unlawful, alleging that the Council failed to consider all relevant matters and acted beyond its statutory powers.

The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the applicable statutory and common law principles. The applicant contended that the Council failed to consider specific statutory obligations and relevant planning policies, thereby rendering the decision unreasonable. The Council, on the other hand, argued that it had properly exercised its discretion and had a rational basis for its decision.

In considering the matter, the court reviewed the statutory framework governing development permits and the principles of administrative law applicable to such decisions. The court found that the Council had indeed failed to consider some relevant statutory obligations and planning policies. It was concluded that the failure to consider these matters rendered the decision unreasonable. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant considerations were properly addressed.

The court ordered that the decision of the Council denying the development permit was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of administrative law and the statutory framework governing the granting of development permits.

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.