Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Laoutaris Holdings Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1541 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 August 2017 Date of orders: 28 September 2017 Decision date: 28 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: reuse and alteration of an existing building - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Laoutaris Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Whealey, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms K Morrin, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/133067 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number D/2017/37. The application sought approval the adaptive reuse of an existing three storey commercial building and construction of two additional storeys. The development is proposed at 44 Foveaux Street, Surry Hills.
-
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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1(a) of the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
The appeal is upheld.
The clause 4.6 written request prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd (as amended) dated September 2017 to vary the floor space ratio control under clause 4.4 of Sydney LEP 2012 is upheld.
The clause 4.6 written request prepared by ABC Planning Pty Ltd dated November 2016 to vary the height control under clause 4.3 of Sydney LEP 2012 is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2017/37 for the adaptive reuse of the existing three storey commercial building and the construction of an additional two storeys above at 44A Foveaux Street, Surry Hills, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure A.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs under s.97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed in the sum of $3,000.00.
……………………….
Danielle Dickson
Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW
Annexure A (C) (290 KB, pdf)
Amended Cl 4.6 - FSR (183 KB, pdf)
Architectural Plans (4.54 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Laoutaris Holdings Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1541
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1541
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had acted with procedural unfairness in denying the development application. The applicant contended that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application and had not given adequate weight to certain factors, such as the potential economic benefits of the proposed development. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors and was not procedurally unfair.
In determining the matter, the court examined the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process. The court found that the council had considered the merits of the application and had given appropriate weight to the relevant factors. The court also noted that the council had provided the applicant with an opportunity to address concerns and had considered the applicant's submissions. Based on this, the court concluded that the council had not acted with procedural unfairness in denying the development application. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for judicial review.
The court's final order was that the application for judicial review be dismissed, with the applicant to pay the respondent's 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.