MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1300


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1300
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 4 December 2015, 29 January, 16 March, 5 April 2016
Date of orders: 30 June 2016
Decision date: 30 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: use of existing building as a boarding house; 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: MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms J. Reid, barrister (Applicant)
Mr J. P. Merlino, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Constantine G. Pavlis & Co Solicitors (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00149904
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA – 2014/566 to use an existing building as a boarding house at 28 Archer Street Chatswood.

  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, 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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The applicant is granted leave amend development application DA-2014/566 as follows:

  1. Rely on the following plans

Type

Plan No.

Revision

/Issue No

Plan Date

(as Amended)

Date

Stamped by Council

Prepared by

arch

A-0101,

A-0103,

A-0201,

A

Dec 2015

-

Benson Mccormack

A-0202,

A-0203,

A-0204

Project 1461A

arch

A-1301

B

Feb 2016

-

Benson Mccormack

arch

A-0102

Project 1461A

C

Feb 2016

-

Benson Mccormack

landscape

LP01

Project 16693

A

04 Feb 2016

-

Matthew Higginson

  1. Rely on an Amended Plan of Management dated December 2015 and provided to Council in April 2016.

  1. Development Application DA-2014/566 for Internal reconfiguration and change of use of the existing building into a Boarding House, comprising 10 rooms with 17 lodgers, parking and associated works at 28 Archer Street, Chatswood is approved subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure A.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

149904.16 - Annexure A (82.3 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1300
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd versus Willoughby City Council, the plaintiff, a property developer, challenged the decisions of the defendant council in relation to development applications made by the plaintiff. The primary dispute revolved around the council's refusal to approve the plaintiff's application for a development permit for a proposed apartment complex, including a hotel, in Willoughby. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of local planning laws, the validity of the council's reasons for refusal, and whether the council had acted lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with the relevant legislative framework. The plaintiff argued that the refusal was not justified and that the council had not properly considered relevant statutory factors. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed procedural unfairness in the council's handling of the development application.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, considering the relevant planning laws and policies. It found that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that the reasons provided for the refusal were rational and based on relevant considerations. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims of procedural unfairness, concluding that the council had followed proper procedures. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the council's decision.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the plaintiff's appeal, affirming the decisions of the council, and awarding costs to the council. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory planning processes and the council's discretion in making development decisions, while also acknowledging the rights of applicants to challenge those decisions in the appropriate forum.

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.