J S Development NSW Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1160


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: J S Development NSW Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1160
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 March 2017
Date of orders: 28 March 2017
Decision date: 28 March 2017
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: J S Development NSW Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Penrith City Council(Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr S Simington
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr P Couch
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 155751/2016
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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon:

  1. Amended architectural plans referred to in Condition 1 of the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”,

  2. BASIX Certificate No 708884M_03 referred to in Condition 1 of “Annexure A”,

  3. Revised Clause 4.6 variation request and Apartment Design Guide checklist dated 31 January 2017,

  4. Revised Flood Assessment dated February 2017,

  5. Design Verification Statement dated 31 January 2017,

  6. Landscape Architects Statement dated 23 January 2017,

  7. Swept Path Analysis diagrams dated 1 February 2017,

  8. Waste Management Plans and details.

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Consent is granted to Development Application No. DA16/0255 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of six (6) storey residential flat development containing 55 apartments and basement car parking at Lots A & B 363630, 42-44 Lethbridge Street, Penrith, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 within 28 days of the date of this Agreement in the amount of $13,000.00.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

155751.2016 (C) (182 KB, pdf)

155751.2016 Morris - Plans (8.73 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
J S Development NSW Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1160
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of J S Development NSW Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council, the plaintiff, J S Development, sought a declaration that it was entitled to certain benefits under a community facilities contribution agreement, which was executed as part of a development approval process. The dispute arose due to disagreements over the interpretation and application of the agreement between the parties. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the community facilities contribution agreement, specifically concerning the obligations and entitlements of the parties under the agreement. The court had to determine whether the council's interpretation of the agreement was correct, particularly in relation to the timing and conditions of the contribution. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council's actions in modifying the agreement after development had commenced were lawful.

The court found that the community facilities contribution agreement was clear in its terms and conditions, and that the council had adhered to the agreement. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the council had acted outside its authority by modifying the agreement post-development commencement. The court emphasised that the council had the power to modify the agreement under the Development Act 1990, provided that the changes were reasonable and in line with the original agreement's purpose. The court concluded that the council's actions were lawful and did not entitle the plaintiff to the benefits it sought.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceeding. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement, relevant statutory provisions, and case law. The court held that the council's interpretation of the agreement was correct and that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded.

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.