Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1547


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1547
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 October 2018
Date of orders: 12 October 2018
Decision date: 12 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: Leda Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
McLellan, Madison Marcus Law Firm (Applicant)
A Epstein, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/371046
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans being those documents listed in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. Pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of amending the application in the amount of $20,000 within 28 days of this order.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2017/1126 (as amended) for the following development on Lot 471 in DP752015, known as 13-19 Baker Street, Banksmeadow:

  1. demolition of the existing factory buildings;

  2. construction of a new 2-storey building, comprising: twenty-six (26) warehouse units, with loading bays and ancillary mezzanine office areas;

  3. seventy-four (74) secure self-storage spaces;

  4. one hundred and twenty-six (126) car parking spaces;

  5. landscaping; and

  6. strata subdivision.

  1. Development consent is granted subject to the Conditions set out in Annexure ‘B’, Plans in Annexure ‘C’ (architectural plans, landscaping plans and stormwater management plans), and draft Strata Subdivision Plans in Annexure ‘D’.

……………………….

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (25.5 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (227 KB, pdf)

Annexure C Architecture Plans (9.26 MB, pdf)

Annexure C Landscape Plans (4.28 MB, pdf)

Annexure C Stormwater Management Plans (3.42 MB, pdf)

Annexure D Draft Strata Plans (1.22 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1547
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1547
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leda Holdings Pty Ltd versus Bayside Council was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Leda Holdings, the plaintiff, contested the decision of Bayside Council, the defendant, to refuse a development application for a proposed hotel on land owned by Leda. The core of the dispute centred around the interpretation of zoning laws and the application of planning policies by the council. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the council's refusal to approve the development application was lawful. This involved examining the statutory framework governing planning and development, as well as the specific zoning regulations applicable to the property in question. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the council had considered all relevant planning policies and whether its decision was supported by proper reasons. The court also had to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

The court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was indeed lawful. It held that the council had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant zoning laws and planning policies. The court emphasised that the council had provided detailed reasons for its decision, which were supported by the evidence and applicable policies. The plaintiff's argument that the decision was unreasonable was rejected, as the court found that the council had not acted irrationally or in a manner that was unfair or arbitrary. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review.

The final orders of the court were that Leda Holdings' application for judicial review be dismissed, with each party to bear their own 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.