Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1616


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1616
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 5, 21,29 September 2016, 4,22,30 November 2016, 8 December 2016
Date of orders: 20 December 2016
Decision date: 20 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a residential flat building; 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: Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)
Representation: Ms S Orbell, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/178016
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No DA80/2016 for the construction of a residential flat building at 1-7, 9-11 Neil Street, Merrylands.

  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. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A” which are as follows:

DA-0.03, Site Plan, Revision G

5 August 2016

DA-0.04, Site Analysis, Revision G

5 August 2016

DA-1.01, Basement Three Plan, Revision E

5 August 2016

DA-1.02, Basement Two Plan, Revision F

10 October 2016

DA-1.03, Basement One Plan, Revision E

5 August 2016

DA-1.04, Ground Floor Plan, Revision H

10 October 2016

DA-1.05, Level 1 Floor Plan, Revision G

10 October 2016

DA-1.06, Level 2-7 Floor Plan, Revision G

10 October 2016

DA-1.07, Level 8 Floor Plan, Revision H

10 October 2016

DA-1.08, Roof Plan, Revision G

10 October 2016

DA-2.01, North Elevation, Revision G

8 June 2016

DA-2.02, South Elevation, Revision H

10 October 2016

DA-2.03, West Elevation, Revision F

10 October 2016

DA-2.04, South East Elevation, Revision F

5 August 2016

DA-3.01, Section A, Revision F

12 April 2016

DA-3.02, Section B, Revision C

5 August 2016

DA-3.03, Section C, Revision A

17 September 2015

DA-6.04, Exterior Finishes, Revision B

4 August 2016

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $5,000 within 28 days of the date of these Orders.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application no. DA80/2016 for construction of a residential flat building comprising 120 residential units and basement parking (ie: Building 1) at 1-7 and 9-11 Neil Street, Holroyd NSW 2142 is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.

…………….

Commissioner G Brown

178016.16 Brown (C) (491 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2016] NSWLEC 1616
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1616
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd versus Cumberland Council was presented before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the legality of a development application submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant council, regarding a proposed commercial and residential complex. Landmark contested the council’s refusal to approve the development, arguing that the decision was unlawful and that the council had acted outside its jurisdictional powers.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. The primary question was whether the council’s refusal to approve the development application was lawful, particularly given the grounds on which the refusal was based. Another significant issue was whether the council's decision-making process complied with the relevant statutory requirements and whether there was any procedural unfairness that impacted the outcome.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, assessing the council's decision against statutory provisions and legal principles. The court found that the council’s refusal was not based on proper grounds and that there were procedural errors in the decision-making process. The court held that the council had acted beyond its jurisdictional powers and that the decision was therefore invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the decision of the Cumberland Council refusing the development application be quashed. The matter was to be reconsidered by the council, ensuring compliance with all statutory and procedural requirements. The court did not make any orders regarding costs, leaving it to the parties to agree on their respective liabilities.

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.