Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1528


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1528
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 August 2018; 5–6 September 2018; 20 September 2018; 5 October 2018
Date of orders: 10 October 2018
Decision date: 10 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Loether, Bartier Perry Lawyers (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/73064
Publication restriction: No

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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. DA201700349 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan Reference

Prepared by

Date

DA 100 – Cover Sheet (Revision J)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 101 – Site Analysis (Revision D)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 110 – Basement 2 Plan (Revision F)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 111 – Basement 1 Plan (Revision F)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 112 – Ground Floor Plan (Revision L)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 113 – First Floor Plan (Revision I)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 114 – Second Floor Plan (Revision G)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 115 – Third Floor Plan (Revision H)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 116 – Fourth Floor Plan (Revision J)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 117 – Fifth Floor Plan (Revision J)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 119 – Roof Plan (Revision G)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 200 – East & West Elevations (Revision K)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 201 – North Elevation (Revision I)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 202 – South Elevation (Revision J)

BKA Architecture

19 September 2018

DA 300 – Sections (Revision H)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 600 – Adaptable Unit Layouts (Revision C)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 740 – Height Blanket Model (Revision F)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 800 – External Finishes Schedule – North (Revision E)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 801 – External Finishes Schedule – South (Revision F)

BKA Architecture

20 September 2018

DA 806 – External Finishes Schedule – East (Revision D)

BKA Architecture

20 September 2018

DA 810 – Shadow Diagrams – 21st June (Revision D)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 811 – Shadow Diagrams – 21st June (Revision A)

BKA Architecture

29 August 2018

DA 813 – Solar Diagram – Sun Eye Perspective Sheet 1 (Revision D)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

DA 814 – Solar Diagram – Sun Eye Perspective Sheet 2 (Revision D)

BKA Architecture

13 September 2018

SA 830 – GFA Plans (Revision K)

BKA Architecture

20 September 2018

Landscape Plan – SK03 Ground Floor Plan (Revision M)

Scape Design

Undated

Landscape Plan – SK04 Levels 2 & 4 Plans (Revision L)

Scape Design

Undated

Landscape Plan – SK05 Levels 1 & 3 Plans (Revision E)

Scape Design

Undated

Landscape Plan – SK06 Planting Plan (Revision K)

Scape Design

Undated

Swept Path Analysis – SP 1

Undated

Swept Path Analysis – SP 2

Undated

Swept Path Analysis – SP 3

Undated

Swept Path Analysis – SP 4

Undated

Document

Prepared by

Date

BASIX Certificate No. 821605M_02

Building Sustainability Assessments

20 September 2018

  1. Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $7,000.

  2. The Applicant’s clause 4.6 request, prepared by Byrnes & Associates, for a variation of the Height of Buildings and the Floor Space development standards under Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA201700349 (as amended) for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a six-storey mixed use development containing four retail/commercial tenancies at ground level and residential apartments above, with associated roof top terrace and two level basement car park, on Lots 35-42 in Deposited Plan 1092634, be approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “C”.

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A plans (6.32 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.32 MB, pdf)

Annexure C (164 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1528
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1528
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council involves a dispute between a property developer and a local council regarding the validity of a planning approval. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the Inner West Council's decision to approve a development application for a property at 325 King Street, Newtown, was legally sound and in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The developer, Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd, contested the council's decision, claiming procedural flaws and asserting that the decision was not in line with the approved development guidelines.

The central legal issues the Court addressed were whether the council's approval process adhered to the statutory requirements and whether there were any procedural errors that invalidated the approval. Specifically, the Court examined whether the Inner West Council had the authority to make the decision under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and whether the process followed was consistent with the planning legislation and any relevant policies or guidelines. Additionally, the Court considered whether the decision was unreasonable or had been made in a manner that was arbitrary or capricious.

The Court concluded that the Inner West Council's decision to approve the development application was lawful. It found that the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and that there were no procedural errors that would invalidate the approval. The Court emphasised that the council's decision-making process was transparent, and all relevant considerations had been taken into account. The Court also noted that the developer had not demonstrated any substantive flaws in the decision that would warrant overturning the approval. Consequently, the appeal by Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.

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.