Jossey Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1560


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:
N Hammond (Applicant)
T To (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/66449
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. 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.

  1. 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)

Details
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

Jossey Pty Ltd sought to have the approval for the development of a mixed-use building in Sydney quashed, contending that the City of Sydney Council did not act in accordance with the statutory requirements when approving the development. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the council's approval was lawful under the Development Act 2006 (NSW).

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.