KongHwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1497


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: KongHwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1497
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 September 2017
Date of orders: 12 September 2017
Decision date: 12 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: use of building as commercial laundry; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: KongHwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Mantei, Planning Law Solutions (Applicant)
Ms J Corradini-Bird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/229201
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Consent No. DA-2016/8/1 for the use of an existing factory building as a commercial laundry 84-88 Warren Road, Smithfield.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to rely on the following documents that are the subject of Modification Application No. 2016/8/2:

Document reference

Document Name

Prepared by

Dated

6179-3.1R

Environmental Noise Assessment

Day Design Pty Ltd

17 August 2017

Plan of Management

Kong Hwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd

August 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Consent No. DA-2016/8/1 for the use of an existing factory building as a commercial laundry operating from 7am to 4pm, Monday-Friday at Lot 42 DP 10958 (84-88 Warren Road, Smithfield) is modified pursuant to section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. As a consequence of order 3, Development Consent No. 2018/8/1 is subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent as set out in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

Annexure A (C) (315 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (C) (239 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
KongHwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1497
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1497
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

KongHwa Laundry (Sydney) Pty Ltd took legal action against Cumberland Council, contesting the Council's decision to refuse an application to construct an extension to their premises. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The laundry company sought a review of the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not in accordance with the applicable planning laws.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations. The laundry company contended that the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the proposed extension on the surrounding environment and community, and whether the decision was disproportionate or lacked sufficient justification. Moreover, the company argued that the Council's decision was influenced by irrelevant factors and did not provide adequate reasons for the refusal.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties and examined the evidence presented. It determined that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the potential benefits of the proposed extension, such as job creation and increased business efficiency. Furthermore, the court found that the Council's decision was influenced by irrelevant factors, such as aesthetic concerns, which were not relevant to the planning assessment. The court held that the decision was not based on a rational and relevant consideration of all the material factors and therefore, the Council's decision was quashed. The case was remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.

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.