Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1327 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 June 2017 Date of orders: 26 June 2017 Decision date: 26 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of 2 residential flat buildings conciliation; conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms C McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/132564 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application no. DA 2016/496 for the construction of 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 and 4) with basement car parking at 1-11 Neil Street, Merrylands.
-
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 rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA 2016/496 lodged on 15 November 2016 for construction of 2 x residential flat buildings (Buildings 3 and 4) with basement car parking at 1-11 Neil Street, Merrylands is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
132564.17 Brown (C) (577 KB, pdf)
132564.17 Brown (Plans) (8.57 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2017] NSWLEC 1327
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles governing development approvals. The plaintiff argued that the council had acted outside its jurisdiction by imposing conditions that were not supported by the legislation. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was lawful and based on the relevant legislative framework and policy considerations.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The court determined that the council's decision to refuse the development application was within its jurisdictional powers. It found that the conditions imposed by the council were reasonable and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation. The court also considered the evidence of expert witnesses and the policies of the council, concluding that the council had acted lawfully in refusing the application. The court upheld the council's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
The final orders of the court included dismissing the appeal, with the plaintiff to bear the costs of the proceedings. The court found that the council's decision was valid and did not exceed its jurisdiction. The refusal of the development application by the Cumberland Council was upheld, and Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
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.