Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Karakatis Holdings Pty Ltd and anor v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1166 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 March 2017 Date of orders: 31 March 2017 Decision date: 31 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: modification to existing consent - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Karakatsis Holdings Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Nikki Beach One Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr A Knox, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicants)
Ms S Puckeridge, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/357292 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Modification Application 2016/357292 to the approval for alterations and additions to an existing building to be used as a residential flat building at 65 Johnston Street Annandale.
-
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 required to amend Modification Application 2016/357292 by deleting the application for the construction of a vehicular access driveway and sidewalk crossover at the Johnston Street frontage;
The appeal is upheld;
Modification application 2016/357292 to DA D/2015/628 for the addition of 3rd storey loft rooms to units 1 & 3 and the installation of 18 skylights is approved subject to the modified conditions of development consent contained in Annexure A;
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s s97B costs as agreed or assessed.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
357292.16 Brown (C) (125 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Karakatis Holdings Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1166
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1166
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the Local Environment Plan (LEP) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's decision to refuse the application was lawful and whether the developer's proposal complied with the relevant planning instruments. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to the council's assessment of the impact on the local environment and heritage.
The court found that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. The developer's proposal was consistent with the LEP and the assessment of the environmental and heritage impacts was flawed. The court emphasised that the council must base its decisions on a thorough and objective assessment of the relevant planning instruments and evidence. The court also noted that the developer's proposal had the potential to benefit the local community and did not pose a significant risk to the environment or heritage. As a result, the court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court included setting aside the council's decision to refuse the application, remitting the matter back to the council for reconsideration, and directing the council to consider the developer's proposal in accordance with the relevant planning instruments and evidence. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the council. The decision provides guidance on the proper application of the planning legislation and the importance of evidence-based decision-making in local government.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.