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 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J. Reid, barrister (Applicant)
Mr J. P. Merlino, solicitor (Respondent)
Constantine G. Pavlis & Co Solicitors (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00149904 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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.
-
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, 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.
The applicant is granted leave amend development application DA-2014/566 as follows:
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
Rely on an Amended Plan of Management dated December 2015 and provided to Council in April 2016.
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)
- AGLC
- MF Holdings NSW Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1300
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1300
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.