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 2011Category: 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
-
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 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
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
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.
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Hatziplis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1528
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1528
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.