Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Llanfoyst Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1033 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 October, 19 December 2017 and 25 January 2018 Date of orders: 25 January 2018 Decision date: 25 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Llanfoyst Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitor:
Ms A Pearman (Respondent)
Anthony Boskovtiz, Boskovitz & Associates (Applicant)
Ann Bowen, Eakin McCaffery Cox Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/192092 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against Council’s refusal of development application number DA/283/2017. The application seeks approval for demolition and construction of a three storey residential flat building. The development is proposed at 5 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick.
-
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 amend the development application and rely upon the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA283/2017 for the demolition of existing structure, construction of Residential flat building containing 6 dwellings, basement parking and associated works is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (213 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (9.18 MB, pdf)
Amendments
21 March 2018 - Correction made to representation.
- AGLC
- Llanfoyst Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1033
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1033
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address included whether the council's decision was lawful and whether there were any procedural errors in the council's decision-making process. The applicants argued that the council failed to consider relevant statutory factors and relied on irrelevant considerations. Additionally, the applicants contended that the council's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness, given that there was an undisclosed conflict of interest involving one of the council members. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was well within its statutory powers and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any procedural unfairness.
In its decision, the court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. The court held that the council had failed to adequately consider relevant statutory factors and had instead relied on irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the court determined that there was a significant procedural error, as the council member with a conflict of interest had participated in the decision-making process. The court concluded that these errors rendered the council's decision unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the council must reconsider the applicants' development application, taking into account all relevant statutory factors and ensuring that there are no procedural errors or conflicts of interest. The council was also directed to provide written reasons for its decision, detailing how it had considered the relevant factors and why it had reached its decision. The applicants' costs were awarded, reflecting the significance of the procedural errors found by the court.
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.