Lak Australia Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1170


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LAK Australia Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1170
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 and 28 March 2018
Date of orders: 05 April 2018
Decision date: 05 April 2018
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: LAK Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Anthony Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr Mark Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/300498
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  1. The Applicant’s updated cl.4.6 written request, prepared by LJB Urban Planning (a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”) to vary the FSR control development standard set out in clause 4.4 of Leichhardt LEP 2013 is upheld.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application no. D/2017/412 for the subdivision and adaptive re-use and conversion of a warehouse building into three strata title dwellings with vehicular access from Joseph Street and Loughlin Street, parking for 3 cars, landscaping, associated drainage and site remediation works at 8-10 Loughlin Street, Rozelle (Lot 1 in DP 609700) is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $5,500.00.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (199 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (148 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
LAK Australia Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1170
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lak Australia Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against the Inner West Council concerning a dispute regarding the approval of a development application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the council had acted unlawfully in approving a development application that allegedly contravened local planning laws and environmental guidelines. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the council had adequately considered all relevant factors and statutory obligations when granting approval.

The court analysed the procedural fairness and the adherence to statutory requirements in the council's decision-making process. It examined whether the council had breached any legal principles in assessing the development application. The court also considered the adequacy of the council's decision-making process, including the evaluation of expert reports and community feedback. Additionally, the court assessed whether the council had provided sufficient reasons for its decision in line with statutory mandates.

After thorough examination, the court found that the council had not acted unlawfully and had properly considered all relevant statutory requirements and factors in granting the approval. The decision was deemed procedurally fair and in compliance with the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the council. The court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of 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.