Leichhardt 141 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1486


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leichhardt 141 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1486
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 6 July, 5, 26 August, 1, 6, 9 September, 6 October 2016
Date of orders: 24 October 2016
Decision date: 24 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing improvements and construction of a 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: Leichhardt 141 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms J Reid, barrister (Applicant)
Mr S Turner, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Inner West Council (Respondent)
- (Applicant)
File Number(s):2016/00160336
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of D/641/2015 for the demolition of existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 141 and 159 Allen Street, Leichhardt.

  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, 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 rely upon the amended plans and documentation:

Drawing Number

Drawn By

Revision Number & Date

DA1001 – Site Analysis Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1002 – Masterplan Concept

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1051 – Masterplan Building Envelope Elevations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1052 – Masterplan Building Envelope Sections

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1100 - Basement Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1101 - Ground Plan

Candalepas Associates

B6 – 05.10.2016

DA1102 - Level 1 & 2 Plan

Candalepas Associates

B6 – 05.10.2016

DA1103 - Level 3 Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1104 - Level 4 Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1851 - Development Calculations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1105 – Level 5 Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1106 – Roof Plan

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1201 - Sections

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1202 – Driveway Sections

Candalepas Associates

B - 21.01.2016

DA1203 – Allen Street Kerb Elevation

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1204 – Flood Street Kerb Elevation

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1301 – North & South Elevation

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1302 – East & West Elevations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1303 - Internal Site Elevations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1304 - Internal Site Elevations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1305 - Internal Site Elevations

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1951 – Adaptable Unit Configuration

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

DA1952 – Mailbox Details

Candalepas Associates

B5 – 30.09.2016

Landscape Plans

Landscape Finishes & Levels Plan – L01 Issue A

Sections and Schedules Plan – L01 Issue A

Roof / Level 3 Plan –

LO3 Issue A

As amended by sketch JILA July 04.16

Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture

20.10.2015

15.09.2016

20.05.2016

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application D/2015/641 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. No order as to cost.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

160336.16 - Annexure A (259 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Leichhardt 141 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2016] NSWLEC 1486
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1486
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court involved Leichhardt 141 Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Inner West Council, the respondent. The appellant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to refuse a development application. The dispute centred on whether the respondent's decision to refuse development approval was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the respondent had properly exercised its discretion in denying the development application, and whether the reasons provided for the refusal were adequate and legally sound. The appellant argued that the refusal was arbitrary and not supported by the evidence, while the respondent maintained that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable planning laws and policies.

The court found that the respondent's decision was based on a proper exercise of discretion and was supported by relevant considerations. It was determined that the respondent had taken into account the applicable planning scheme, relevant policies, and other material factors in making its decision. The court held that the reasons provided by the respondent were adequate and that the decision to refuse the development application was lawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.

The court found that the respondent's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations. The reasons provided by the respondent were deemed adequate, and the appellant's application for judicial review was dismissed. The decision of the respondent was affirmed, and no further orders were made.

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.