Lauon Investment Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1200


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lauon Investment Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2017] NSWLEC 1200
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 21 April 2017
Date of orders: 24 April 2017
Decision date: 24 April 2017
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: Lauon Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Parramatta Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions(Applicant)
S Brew, Matthews Folbigg Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/262870
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 Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No 671/2015 for the demolition of existing structures and consolidation of Lot 4 DP 219327 and Lot 28 DP 31350 at 5-7 Burbang Crescent, Rydalmere and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building comprising two (2) x one (1) bedroom units, twelve (12) x two (2) bedroom units and two (2) x three (3) bedroom units over basement car parking, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  3. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans and additional documents:

  1. Architectural plans prepared by Gus Fares Architects Pty Ltd, Revision F dated February 2017, as follows:

  1. Drawing number A100, Cover Page;

  2. Drawing number A101, Site Analysis;

  3. Drawing number A102, Site Information;

  4. Drawing Number A200, Basement;

  5. Drawing Number A201; Ground Floor & Details;

  6. Drawing number A202, First Floor/Typical Unit Layout;

  7. Drawing number A203, Second Floor/Typical Unit Layout;

  8. Drawing number A204, Attic Level/Typical Unit Layout;

  9. Drawing number A300, Elevations;

  10. Drawing number A400, Sections & Basix Commitments and Table;

  11. Drawing number A500, Shadow Diagrams/Streetscape Analysis;

  12. Drawing number A501, Solar Access Study/Cross Ventilation Study;

  13. Drawing number A600, Perspective Height Plan Diagram;

  14. Drawing number A700, Calculation Sheet.

  1. Landscape plans prepared by Greenland Design Pty Ltd, Revision C dated 11 February 2017.

  1. Drawing number 1157.L.01, Landscape Plan – Ground Floor

  2. Drawing number 1157.L.02, Landscape Plan – Attic Level

  3. Drawing number 1157.L.03, Landscape Details & Specifications

  1. Stormwater plans prepared by Australian Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd, as follows:-

  1. Cover Sheet, Legend & Drawing Schedule, Drawing number D00, Rev A, dated 28 August 2015;

  2. Basement Stormwater Drainage Plan, Drawing number D01, Rev C, dated 10 February 2017;

  3. Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan, Drawing number D02, Rev D, dated 10 February 2017;

  4. Site Stormwater Drainage Details Page 1, Drawing number D10, Rev E, dated 10 February 2017;

  5. Site Stormwater Drainage Details Page 2, Drawing number D11, Rev A, dated 28 August 2015;

  6. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, Drawing number E20, Rev B, dated 31 October 2016; and

  7. Erosion & Sediment Control Details, Drawing number E21, Rev B, dated 1 September 2015.

  1. BASIX Certificate no 658967M_02 dated 2 February 2017.

  2. Clause 4.6 Statement prepared by Minto Planning Services dated 9 February 2017.

  1. The First and Second Applicants are to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result amending the development application, pursuant to s 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the sum of $9,500.00 to be paid within 28 days.

…………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

262870.16 Annexure A (C) (146 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Lauon Investment Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta Council [2017] NSWLEC 1200
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lauon Investment Pty Ltd brought an action against the City of Parramatta Council, seeking relief in relation to a dispute concerning the interpretation of a development approval granted by the council. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was to determine the correct interpretation of a clause within the development approval, specifically in relation to the obligations placed upon the respondent concerning the provision of infrastructure and services in connection with the approved development.

The legal issue at the core of the case revolved around whether the council had met the conditions set out in the development approval, particularly focusing on the provision of infrastructure and services. Lauon Investment contended that the council had failed to comply with the specific requirements of the approval, thereby breaching the terms of the agreement. The council, on the other hand, argued that it had fulfilled its obligations as per the approval and that any discrepancies were due to circumstances beyond its control. The court had to examine the terms of the approval, the obligations it imposed, and whether those obligations had been met by the council.

In its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the development approval and the relevant planning legislation. It found that the council had indeed failed to comply with certain critical conditions of the approval, particularly regarding the provision of infrastructure and services. The court emphasised that the terms of the approval were clear and unambiguous, and that the council’s failure to meet these conditions constituted a breach of the agreement. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Lauon Investment, finding that the council had not fulfilled its obligations under the development approval. As a result, the court ordered that the council take the necessary steps to comply with the terms of the approval, including the provision of the required infrastructure and services.

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.