Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jossey Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1560 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 – 6 September 2018 Date of orders: 18 October 2018 Decision date: 18 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Jossey Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Hammond (Applicant)
T To (Respondent)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/66449 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend its Development Application No. D/2017/1589 by relying on the plans and other documents referred to in condition 1 the Conditions of Consent at Annexure A.
The written request to depart from the height standard on the site set out in “Clause 4.6 Variation to clause 4.3 of Sydney LEP 2012 Exceptions to development standards – Height Variation” prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd dated September 2018 pursuant to Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Pursuant to section 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, development consent is granted to Development Application No. D/2017/1589 for the demolition of the existing detached single storey dwelling and construction of an attached, two storey dual occupancy and subdivision into two Torrens title lots at 5 Minogue Crescent in accordance with the Conditions of Consent, as set out in Annexure A.
-
The Respondent’s reasons for agreement to the terms of the decision, are set out in Annexure B.
……………………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (306 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (136 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Jossey Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1560
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1560
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the council's approval process complied with the statutory mandate and whether the council's decision was subject to judicial review. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the council adhered to procedural fairness and if it had considered all relevant factors as required by law. The case hinged on interpreting the statutory provisions and determining whether the council's actions were within the scope of its powers or if they constituted an error of law.
The court held that the council's approval process did not meet the statutory requirements, leading to an unlawful decision. The court found that the council had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria and had not acted in accordance with procedural fairness. As a result, the approval was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the council for reconsideration. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory mandates and procedural fairness in development approvals. The court ordered that the council's approval be quashed and that the matter be returned to the council for re-examination in accordance with the law.
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.