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 1979Category: 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
-
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.
-
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:
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".
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- LSPCC Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1224
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.