Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ionic Management Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1710 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October, 1 and 15 November, 6 and 8 December 2017 Date of orders: 11 December 2017 Decision date: 11 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson 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: Ionic Management Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr A Galasso, SC (Applicant)
Mr M Stanton (Respondent)
HWL Ebsworth (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/190921 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 3 of Annexure A.
The applicant is to pay the Council’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $1.
The appeal is upheld.
Approval is granted to DA16/1668 for demolition of existing structures and construction of mixed use commercial development including Woolworths supermarket, Dan Murphy’s liquor store, commercial tenancies, child care centre, road widening/upgrade works, parking, signage and associated facilities at 24 – 38 Flora Street, Kirrawee subject to the conditions at Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Jenny Smithson
Annexure A (C)
- AGLC
- Ionic Management Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1710
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1710
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the council's decision-making process adhered to the legal standards of procedural fairness and whether the council properly considered all relevant factors. In particular, the court assessed whether the council had given proper weight to the evidence provided by Ionic Management and whether it had adequately considered the potential environmental impact of the development. The court also scrutinised whether the decision was rationally connected to the objectives of the local environmental plan.
After careful consideration, the court concluded that the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the exemption. The court found that the council had given appropriate consideration to the evidence presented and had correctly applied the local environmental plan. The decision was deemed to be rational and within the scope of the council's statutory powers. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.
The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the Sutherland Shire Council's decision to deny Ionic Management Pty Ltd an exemption from the local environmental plan. The court held that the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and properly based on relevant considerations. The decision of the council was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs.
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.