Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kemby Pty Ltd & Reptar Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1473 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 July 2017 Date of orders: 30 August 2017 Decision date: 30 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Kembly Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Reptar Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr I Lacy, Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/82869 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 Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:
Description
Drawing No.
Revision No.
Date
Title Page
A0000
-
-
Demolition Plan
A1101
A
09/08/16
Basement Plan
A1201
D
15/08/17
Basement Plan
A1202
D
15/08/17
Ground Floor Plan
A1203
D
15/08/17
Level 01 Plan
A1204
D
15/08/17
Level 02 Plan
A1204
D
15/08/17
Level 03 Plan
A1204
D
15/08/17
Level 04 Plan
A1205
D
15/08/17
Level 05 Plan
A1205
D
15/08/17
Level 06 Plan
A1205
D
15/08/17
Level 07 Plan
A1205
D
15/08/17
Level 08 Plan
A1206
D
15/08/17
Level 09 Plan
A1207
D
15/08/17
Level 10 Plan
A1208
D
15/08/17
Level 11 Plan
A1209
D
15/08/17
Roof Plan
A1210
D
15/08/17
North Elevation
A1301
D
15/08/17
South Elevation
A1302
D
15/08/17
East Elevation
A1303
D
15/08/17
West Elevation
A1304
D
15/08/17
Section AA
A1401
D
21/08/17
Section BB
A1402
D
Affordable Housing diagram
A2070
D
21/08/17
Material Schedule
A2201 to A2204
B
21/08/17
The appeal is upheld.
Development application DA – 794/2016 lodged on 25 August 2016 is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
82869.17 Dixon (C) Annexure A (325 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Kemby Pty Ltd and Reptar Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1473
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1473
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of the Liverpool City Council Development Control Plan and the associated legislative framework that governs development applications in New South Wales. Specifically, the Court was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Council properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the statutory criteria and whether there was any bias or procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.
The Court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the Council's reasons for refusing the development approval and whether these reasons were supported by the evidence. The Court found that the Council had not fully considered all the relevant factors in its decision-making process, and there were procedural errors in how the application was assessed. Consequently, the Court determined that the decision to refuse the development approval was not lawful and should be set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's findings.
The Court ordered that the decision of the Liverpool City Council to refuse the development approval be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reassessment. The Court further directed that the Council consider the application afresh, taking into account all relevant factors and ensuring that its decision-making process was fair, lawful, and in accordance with the statutory provisions. The plaintiffs were awarded costs associated with the proceedings.
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.