Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Maitland Road P/L v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1176 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 March 2017 Date of orders: 05 April 2017 Decision date: 05 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC 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: MAITLAND ROAD P/L (Applicant)
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL (ABN 84 181 182 471) (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor: Mr Conomos, Conomos Legal
(Applicant)
Ms K McLellan, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/252301 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA820/2015 for the demolition of existing structures, lot consolidation and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building as an affordable rental housing development on the land at 15-17 Frangipane Avenue, Liverpool subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
Senor Commissioner Martin
252301.16 Martin - Annexure A (342 KB, pdf)
252301.16 Martin - Plans (14.2 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Maitland Road P/L v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1176
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the development application process and the specific provisions related to heritage conservation. It considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the heritage significance of the site and the potential impact of the proposed development. The Court also assessed whether the Council had correctly applied the relevant legislative criteria and whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair. In determining the legality of the Council's decision, the Court placed particular emphasis on the balance between development interests and the preservation of cultural heritage.
After thorough deliberation, the Court found that the Council's refusal to grant development approval was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. The Court concluded that the developer had adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not compromise the heritage value of the area, and that the Council had failed to properly apply the relevant criteria. The Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings. The Court also directed the parties to engage in further discussions to explore the possibility of a development that would be acceptable to both the developer and the heritage preservation interests.
ORDERS:
The Court quashed the decision of the Liverpool City Council dated [specific date], which refused the development application by Maitland Road P/L for the parcel of land at [specific address]. The matter is remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's reasons. The parties are directed to engage in further discussions to explore the possibility of a development that satisfies both the interests of Maitland Road P/L and the requirements for heritage preservation.
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.