JB Hillsdale Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1600


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 1979
Category: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

  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 make, 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 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
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 case of JB Hillsdale Pty Ltd v City of Botany Bay Council involved a dispute between the applicant, JB Hillsdale, and the respondent, City of Botany Bay Council, over the validity of a planning decision. The applicant sought to challenge a decision by the respondent to refuse development approval for a proposed car wash facility. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Land and Environment Division. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to refuse development approval was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the applicable planning and environmental laws.

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.