Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gwydir Holdings Pty Ltd v Campbelltown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1546 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 October 2016 Date of orders: 21 November 2016 Decision date: 21 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Gwydir Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Campbelltown Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Dr J Smith (Applicant)Solicitors:
Mr A Seton
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 213119/2016 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing Title
Drawing No.
Revision
Prepared by
Dated
Cover Page/ Site Analysis/ Site Calculation
DA100
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Site Plan/ Roof Plan/ GFA Calculations
DA101
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Ground Level/ Demolition Plan
DA102
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
First Level
DA103
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Typical Room Layout/ Construction Management Plan
DA 104
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Elevations/ Schedule of External Finishes/ Windows & Doors Schedule
DA105
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Shadow Diagrams
DA106
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Front Fence Details
DA107
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Perspectives
DA108
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Sections
DA109
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Solar Access to Common Room from 9AM to 12 Noon – 21st June
DA110
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Solar Access to Common Room from 1PM to 3PM – 21st June
DA111
E
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
8 November 2016
Surrounding Views
DA113
C
Michael Kitmiridis Architect
October 2016
Landscape Plan
L101
E
QTN Landscape
11/16
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 3552/2015/DA-BH for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 2 storey boarding house containing 14 rooms (12x single rooms and 2x double rooms) 3 car parking spaces, 4 bicycle spaces and 3 motorcycle parking spaces, common open space, tree removal and associated landscaping on Lot 18A in Deposited Plan 389816 (known as 38 Parliament Road, Macquarie Fields), is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” hereto.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
213119.2016 (C) Annexure A (2.77 MB, pdf)
213119.16 Morris - Plans E13 (591 KB, pdf)
213119.16 Morris - Plans (5.26 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Gwydir Holdings Pty Ltd v Campbelltown Council [2016] NSWLEC 1546
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1546
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the LEP in the context of the appellant's development application. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the LEP allowed for the residential subdivision proposed by the appellant. This involved examining the relevant provisions of the LEP, and understanding the planning principles and objectives that underpin the legislation. The court also needed to consider whether there were any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the LEP that could impact the interpretation of the proposed development.
The court held that the LEP did not permit the proposed residential subdivision, as it conflicted with the objectives of the LEP. The court found that the LEP aimed to protect the natural environment, conserve water resources, and promote sustainable development. The proposed development, in the court's view, did not align with these objectives. The court further held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the environment or the surrounding area. As such, the council's decision to refuse the development application was upheld.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the council's decision to refuse the development application. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.