LSPCC Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1224


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LSPCC Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1224
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 11 May 2018
Date of orders: 11 May 2018
Decision date: 11 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - subdivision of land and construction of dwelling - 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: LSPCC Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
C McJannett, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/227317
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by LPSCC Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal of an application made to Inner West Council relating to 382 Livingstone Road, Marrickville, for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling house, the subdivision of the site from two into five lots and the construction of a 3-storey dwelling on each resulting allotment. The application now seeks consent for part demolition of existing improvements, subdivision from 2 into 3 lots including retention of the existing dwelling house on Lot 1 and construction of a 2 storey with attic dwelling house on the existing Lot B in DP 300155.

  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 make, 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. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans and documents listed in Condition 1 of the conditions attached and marked "A".

  2. The applicant 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 $2,715 GST inclusive in full and final payment. This Order is entirely separate from the order made by the Court on 2 May 2018.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA0175 for part demolition of existing improvements, subdivide from 2 into 3 lots including retention of the existing dwelling house on Lot 1 and construction of a 2 storey with attic dwelling house on the existing Lot B in DP 300155 at 382 Livingstone Road, Marrickville, is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A".

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (229 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.94 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
LSPCC Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1224
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LSPCC Pty Ltd, a company involved in the construction and operation of a commercial car park, filed an appeal against the Inner West Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the approval of a development application for the car park, which the Council had initially rejected. LSPCC sought to challenge the Council's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The primary focus was on the alleged procedural errors in the Council's decision-making process and the merits of the application itself.

The legal issues before the court encompassed both procedural and substantive aspects of the planning decision. Procedurally, LSPCC contended that the Council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application and that the decision-making process was flawed. Substantively, LSPCC argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that the car park was a suitable development for the site. The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on the relevant planning considerations.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and assessed the Council's decision-making process. It was determined that the Council had indeed failed to properly consider the merits of the application and that the decision-making process was flawed. The court found that the Council had not adequately addressed key planning considerations and had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, directing that the merits of the application be properly considered and that adequate reasons be provided.

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.