Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Karimbla Construction Services (NSW) Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1040 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 January 2018 Date of orders: 02 February 2018 Decision date: 02 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - replacement of the existing top of building sign to the mid-rise parapet - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Karimbla Constructions Services (NSW) Pty. Limited (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr J Callaghan, Meriton Property Services Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Mr A Singh, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/257836 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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A. The parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2017/374 for the replacement of the existing top of building sign to the mid-rise parapet of the serviced apartments at 4-10 Campbell Street, Haymarket, being the land comprised in Lot 21 on Deposited Plan 804108 with a new illuminated building identification sign, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexure A (1.31 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (301 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Karimbla Construction Services (NSW) Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1040
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1040
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful and whether the applicant's proposal complied with the relevant planning and environmental frameworks. The court also had to determine if the council's refusal was unreasonable and whether the applicant had adequately demonstrated that the proposed development was in the public interest.
The court reviewed the council's decision-making process and found that the refusal was based on an incorrect application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The council had failed to adequately consider the applicant's proposal and its compliance with the relevant planning instruments. The court determined that the refusal was unreasonable, given the evidence presented by the applicant regarding the environmental impact and public benefits of the project. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration.
The final orders of the court mandated the council to reconsider the applicant's development application, ensuring that all relevant legislative and policy considerations were appropriately applied. The council was directed to make a decision within a specified timeframe, and the court noted that the applicant's proposal should be given due consideration based on the evidence presented.
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.