Lichao Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1119

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lichao Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1119
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 19 December 2016, 6 February, 14 February, 21 February and 2 March 2017
Date of orders: 07 March 2017
Decision date: 07 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Lichao Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
Representation: Vasili Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Paul Kapetas, City of Ryde Council(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/280290
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:

  1. DA 2.21 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  2. DA 3.21 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  3. DA 3.22 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  4. DA 3.23 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  5. DA 3.24 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  6. DA 3.25 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  7. DA 3.26 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  8. DA 3.27 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  9. DA 3.28 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  10. DA 3.29 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  11. DA 3.30 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  12. DA 5.21 Issue 4 dated 21.02.2017

  13. DA 5.22 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  14. DA 5.23 Issue 2 dated 21.02.2017

  15. DA 6.21 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  16. DA 6.22 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  17. DA 6.23 Issue 3 dated 21.02.2017

  18. Dwgs C1.00, C2.00, C2.01, C2.02 and C2.03 (Revision C dated 22.06.2016) and Dwgs C3.00 and C.301 (Revision B dated 22.06.2016).

  19. VG-DA-L1 Landscape plan dated July 2016

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA 2016/0341 as amended by the plans referred to at direction 1 above, seeking approval for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development incorporating 11 residential units and a ground level commercial/retail tenancy, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to Section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

…………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner

280290.16 Annexure A (C) (211 KB, pdf)

280290.16 Approved Plans (3.34 MB, pdf)

280290.16 Approved Stormwater (5.22 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Lichao Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1119
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lichao Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central dispute between the parties centred around the interpretation and application of zoning laws and development applications. Lichao Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought approval for a commercial development on a parcel of land owned by the company. The City of Ryde Council, the respondent, denied the application on the grounds that it contravened local zoning regulations. The applicant appealed the council's decision, contending that the zoning laws should be interpreted in a manner that allowed for the proposed development.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's interpretation of the zoning laws was correct in denying the development application. This involved examining the language of the relevant zoning regulations, the intended purpose of these regulations, and whether any relevant precedent or statutory guidelines should influence the interpretation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's decision was procedurally fair and whether there were any errors in the application of the law.

The court, in its reasoning, closely examined the wording of the zoning regulations and the specific circumstances of the proposed development. It found that the council's interpretation of the regulations was consistent with their plain meaning and the overall purpose of maintaining the character of the area. The court also concluded that the council's decision-making process was procedurally sound, and no significant errors were made in the application of the law. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the council's decision to deny the development application.

As a result of the court's decision, Lichao Pty Ltd's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision to deny the development application was upheld. The court did not order any further action by either party but confirmed the council's authority in zoning matters and the need for compliance with local regulations.

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.