Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Laushing Investment Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1344 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 February 2016 Date of orders: 18 August 2016 Decision date: 18 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; multi-storey mixed use building with boarding house and commercial premises; urban design issues; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Laushing Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Ms J Reid (Barrister)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr A Seton (Solicitor)
Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 152440 of 2016 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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, 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Drawing N0
Dated
A100, Cover page, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects
June 2016
A101, Site plan/ site analysis/ calculation, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects
June 2016
A103, Elevations/ sections, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects
June 2016
A104, Shadow Diagrams/ section/ communal living room solar access, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects
June 2016
A105, Area calculation/ street view, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects
June 2016
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 60/2014 for the demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of a four (4) storey mixed use building containing commercial premises on the ground floor and a boarding house above subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
The Court notes the agreement there be no order as to costs.
____________________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
152440.16 Fakes (C) (369 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Laushing Investment Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1344
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1344
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the planning permit refusal was in accordance with the relevant planning laws and whether the Council had acted lawfully in its decision-making process. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies, and if the decision was within the scope of the statutory powers granted to the Council.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the application of the planning laws and policies to the specific circumstances of the proposed development. The court held that the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was lawful. The Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and exercised its statutory powers within the scope of its authority. The court found that the decision was not arbitrary or irrational and was based on a legitimate and rational assessment of the development's impact on the surrounding area.
The court dismissed the claim and made a declaration that the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was lawful. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.
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.