Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: JB Hillsdale Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2016] NSWLEC 1600 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 September, 4 October, 9 December 2016 Date of orders: 13 December 2016 Decision date: 13 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPEAL: Development application – residential flat buildings; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: JB Hillsdale Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Botany Bay Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Peta Hudson (Applicant)
John Cole (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Marsdens Law Group (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00163500 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:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documents as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing No.
Author
Date
Basement 3 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A02_A, Issue 03
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Basement 2 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A02, Issue 08
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Basement 1 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A03, Issue 09
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Lower Ground Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A04, Issue 09
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Ground Level Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A05, Issue 12
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Level 1-2 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A06, Issue 08
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Level 3 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A06_A, Issue 02
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Level 4 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A09, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Level 5 Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A10, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Roof Plan, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A11, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Elevations 1, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A20, Issue 07
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Elevations 2, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A21, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Elevations 3, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A22, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Section A-A, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A30, Issue 06
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Section B-B, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A31, Issue 04
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
Apartment Schedule, Project No 0915
Krikis Tayler Architects
24 November 2016
Landscape Plan, Job No. 161114, Dwg No. LP.01/C, Sheet 1 of 1.
Narelle Sonter
December 2016
Material Board, Project No 0915, Drawing No. A60, Issue 06,
Krikis Tayler Architects
25 November 2016
NaTHERS Thermal Performance Specifications (BASIX Thermal Comfort), Certificate Number 0001038340
Robert Mallindine
30 November 2016
BASIX Certificate No. 595696M_03
AGA Consultants
30 November 2016
Access Report
Accessibility Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd
29 November 2016
Flood Advice for 278 Bunnerong Road, Hillsdale
Cardno
23 November 2016
WC297-02F01- WS Memo
Windtech Consultants Pty Ltd
28 November 2016
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Tree Wise Men
December 2016
Site Audit Report No. 0503-0705
JBS & G
Dated 22 July 2013
Received 22 December 2014
BCA Compliance Capability Report
Vic Lilli & Partners Consulting
28 November 2016
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $50,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Consent is granted to Development Application DA-14/318 for the construction of two residential flat buildings containing 84 units comprising; 28 x 1 bedroom units, 50 x 2 bedroom units and 6 x 3 bedroom units with basement car parking levels accommodating 157 car spaces on the land at 278 Bunnerong Road, Hillsdale, subject to the conditions as contained in Annexure “A”.
…………….
Susan Dixon
Commissioner
163500.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (270 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- JB Hillsdale Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council [2016] NSWLEC 1600
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1600
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the respondent had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had considered all relevant matters in making its decision. The applicant argued that the respondent had failed to properly consider the environmental impact of the proposed car wash and had improperly weighed the benefits against the potential harm. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and that all relevant factors had been duly considered. The court examined the statutory provisions governing planning decisions and the principles of administrative law relevant to the review of such decisions. It assessed whether the respondent had complied with the statutory requirements and whether the decision was rational and based on relevant considerations.
After a detailed examination of the evidence and the applicable legal framework, the court concluded that the respondent's decision was lawful. The court found that the respondent had adequately considered the environmental impact and had properly weighed the relevant factors in reaching its decision. The court rejected the applicant's contention that the respondent had failed to consider the benefits of the proposed development. The court held that the respondent had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was not unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.
The court's final order was that the applicant's application for judicial review be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The court did not grant the relief sought by the applicant and confirmed the validity of the respondent's decision. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and proper consideration of all relevant factors in planning decisions.
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.