Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Kaizen properties (Ashfield) Pty Ltd v inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1661 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 28 April 2017 Date of orders: 05 June 2017 Decision date: 05 June 2017 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: Kaizen properties (Ashfield) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms P. Moran (Applicant)
Ms K. Gerathy(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/386114 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 appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans set out in Annexure A.
Development Application No. 2015.238.1 for the inclusion of 21 additional hospital beds, two storey extensions to the southern side of the main building to accommodate extended rehabilitation facilities including a relocated gymnasium, new consulting rooms, meeting and educational rooms, a new entrance/reception and waiting area, the conversion of the existing gymnasium back to patient wards and associated bathroom and storage facilities with a new patient lift and fire stair providing internal connection to a new wards and waiting/staff facilities together with a new vehicular access via Victoria Street and a new car parking area is approved on the following allotments subject to the conditions in Annexure A:
Auto Consol 10962-218 (16 Robert Street and 63 Victoria Street) made up of the following parcels: Lot 1 DP 115456, Lot 1 DP 901197, Lot 1 DP 901198, Lot 1 DP 901199, Lot 1 DP 901200 together with Auto Consol 8653-46 (83 Victoria Street) made up of the following parcels: Lot 5 DP 4272, Lot 6 DP 4272, Lot 7 DP 4272, Lot 8 DP 4272, Lot 9 DP 4272, Lot 10 DP 4272, Lot 11 DP 4272, Lot 12 DP 4272
…………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
386114.16 (C).docx (336 KB, pdf)
Amendments
07 June 2017 - Order two added to s34 judgment
- AGLC
- Kaizen properties (Ashfield) Pty Ltd v inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1661
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1661
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Council properly exercised its discretion in denying consent for the proposed building works, whether the Council's decision-making process complied with statutory requirements, and whether there were any errors in the application of the planning legislation. Additionally, the court examined whether the Council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations.
In delivering judgment, the court found that the Council had indeed exercised its discretion in accordance with the statutory framework. The court held that the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and statutory criteria. The court further found that there were no errors in the application of the planning legislation and that the decision was not based on any irrelevant considerations. The court concluded that the Council's refusal of consent was valid and dismissed the application for judicial review.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
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.