Lauon Investments Pty Ltd and Chansons Investment Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1621


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lauon Investments Pty Ltd & Chansons Investment Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1621
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 3 November 2017
Date of orders: 07 November 2017
Decision date: 07 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a seven (7) storey 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: Lauon Investments Pty Ltd & Chansons Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr D Tyrell, McKee Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms K McLellan, Mardsens Law Group(Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/110931
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application Number DA-16-04525 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building containing 35 units with two levels of basement parking at 66 Kildare Road, Blacktown.

  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 amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 2.1.1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. Pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application Number DA-16-04525 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building containing 35 units with two levels of basement parking at 66 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW (Lot 194 in Deposited Plan 13619) is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Commissioner Brown

110931.17 Brown (C) Annexure A (466 KB, pdf)

110931.17 Brown - Plans (9.65 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Lauon Investments Pty Ltd and Chansons Investment Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1621
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1621
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lauon Investments Pty Ltd and Chansons Investment Pty Ltd sought to challenge a decision of the Blacktown City Council to refuse development approval for a proposed multi-level car park in the suburb of Blacktown, New South Wales. The applicants sought to have the council's decision quashed and the application for development approval approved by the court. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was legally valid, whether there was a material error of law in the decision-making process, and whether the decision was unreasonable. In particular, the court needed to consider whether the council had acted in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations.

The court found that the council's decision was legally valid and not subject to error of law. The court held that the council had considered all relevant and material considerations and had not acted in an unreasonable manner. The court found that the proposed development did not comply with the relevant planning scheme and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding environment. The court held that the council's decision was therefore reasonable and should be upheld.

The court dismissed the applicants' appeal and affirmed the council's decision to refuse development approval for the proposed multi-level car park. The court also ordered that the applicants pay the council'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.