Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Icek Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1619 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 November 2016 Date of orders: 21 December 2016 Decision date: 21 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Icek Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr A. Stafford barrister (Applicant)
Mr S. Shneider solicitor (Respondent)
King & Wood Mallesons (Applicant)
Houston Dearn O’Connor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/158972
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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 22/2015 for use as a mixed use development comprising the erection of a 14 storey building containing commercial space at ground floor and 117 residential apartments above and provision of 158 car parking places provided over 2 basement levels at 653 Gardeners Road, Mascot, is approved, subject to conditions as set out in Annexure ‘A’.
There is no order as to costs.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
158972.16 O'Neill (C) (457 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Icek Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2016] NSWLEC 1619
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1619
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the Council's approval of the planning application was invalid due to the absence of written reasons and whether the approval process complied with the statutory requirements under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The court examined the statutory obligations imposed on the Council and the procedural fairness required in making such approvals. The appellant contended that the Council's failure to provide written reasons for its decision rendered the approval invalid, while the respondent argued that the approval was valid and that the lack of written reasons did not invalidate the decision.
In its judgment, the court found that while the statutory requirements for written reasons were indeed applicable, the absence of such reasons did not necessarily render the approval invalid. The court held that the Council's approval process generally complied with the statutory requirements, and the failure to provide written reasons did not undermine the validity of the decision. The court concluded that the Council's decision was made in accordance with the planning scheme and that the procedural fairness was adequately observed. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Council's decision as valid. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with each party bearing their own 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.