Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Legge & Legge Architects Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1483 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 September 2018 Date of orders: 13 September 2018 Decision date: 13 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Legge & Legge Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall and Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/42711 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 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:
The Applicant is granted leave to amended Development Application No. D/2017/494 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure ‘A’:
Plan, Revision and Issue No.
Plan Name/ Certificate
Type
Date Issued
Prepared by
DA102, Rev H
Subdivision Plan
03.09.18
Legge & Legge Architects
DA111-113, 120-122, 130, 150-152 & 154, all Rev H
Architectural Plans
03.09.18
Legge & Legge Architects
DA109, 110 & 131, all Rev I
Architectural Plans
10.09.18
Legge & Legge Architects
DA Revision B
Landscape Plans
11.09.18
Shobha Designs
17MB7579/D01 Issue A
Stormwater Plans
22.09.2017
United Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
BA170907
Aircraft Noise Assessment
October 2017
Blackett Acoustics
Revision C
Materials & Finishes Schedule
04.09.18
Legge & Legge Architects
861726_02
BASIX Certificate Lot 19a
06.09.18
Renovation Solutions Pty Ltd
861167S_02
BASIX Certificate Lot 19
06.09.18
Renovation Solutions Pty Ltd
The appeal is upheld.
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away as a result of the amendment of the application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $8,000 GST inclusive in full and final payment within 28 days.
Development Application No. D/2017/494 for demolition of all structures, subdivision of the allotment into two allotments and construction of two x three storey semi-detached dwellings, at 19 Margaret Street, Stanmore, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure ‘B’.
……………………….
Commissioner O’Neill
Annexure A
Annexure B (C)
Amendments
19 September 2018 - Attached Annexures A and B.
- AGLC
- Legge and Legge Architects Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1483
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1483
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of planning regulations and the extent of the council's discretion in approving or rejecting the application. The architects argued that the council's refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the statutory requirements. They contended that the site was suitable for the proposed commercial development, given its location and existing infrastructure. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the application did not comply with zoning laws and that the proposed development was inappropriate for the area.
The court examined the relevant planning documents and legislative framework to determine whether the council's decision was justified. It was noted that the site was indeed zoned for residential use, and any commercial development would require special consideration and approval. The court found that the council had followed the proper procedures and had adequately justified its decision based on the statutory criteria. The architects' arguments regarding the suitability of the site for commercial use were not sufficient to overturn the council's decision. The court concluded that the council's refusal of the planning application was lawful and reasonable.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the council's decision. The architects were ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.
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.