Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MHT Equities v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1428 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 September 2016 Date of orders: 20 September 2016 Decision date: 20 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C 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: MHT Equities (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Alice Spizzo (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Keli Law (Respondent)
Landerer & Company (Applicant)
Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00161692 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, 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 terms of the decision are as follows:
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No 2015/060 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a five (5) storey residential flat building containing (10) units comprising three (3) x studio, one (1) x 1 bedroom and six (6) x 2 bedroom units above two (2) levels of basement parking, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans:
Demolition plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1100, Issue C dated 24 August 2016
Basement 02 Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1201, Issue D dated 09 September 2016
Basement 01 Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1202, Issue D dated 09 September 2016
Ground Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1203, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Level 01 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. 1204 Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Level 02 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1205, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Level 03 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1206, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Level 04 Floor Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1207, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Roof Plan prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1208, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
North and South Elevations prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1500, Issue G dated 24 August 2016
East and West Elevations prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1501, Issue G dated 24 August 2016
Section AA and BB prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect, Drawing No. A1700, Issue F dated 24 August 2016
Material Schedule prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect Dwg No. A1600 Issue B dated 24 August 2016
Material Schedule prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect Dwg No. A1601 Issue B dated 24 August 2016
Car Park Review Ground Floor PTC-001 Rev 2 prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants dated 23 August 2016
Basement Level 1 (B1) PTC-002 Rev 2 prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants dated 23 August 2016
Basement Level 2 (B2) PTC-003 Rev 2 prepared by Parking and Traffic Consultants dated 23 August 2016
Ground Floor Landscape Plan Dwg LPDA 15 – 402 /1G prepared by Conzept Landscape dated 24 August 2016
Level 4 Planter Landscape Plan Dwg LPDA 15 – 402 /2G prepared by Conzept Landscape dated 24 August 2016
Landscape Details prepared by Dwg LPDA 15 – 402 /3 prepared by Conzept Landscape dated 24 August 2016
Landscape Details prepared by Dwg LPDA 15 – 402 /4 prepared by Conzept Landscape dated 24 August 2016
Landscape Details prepared by Dwg LPDA 15 – 402 /5 prepared by Conzept Landscape dated 24 August 2016
Stormwater Concept Design Basement Plans Project No. 2015/0041 SW 02 Rev F prepared by SGC Consulting dated 23 August 2016
Stormwater Concept Design Ground Floor Plans Project No. 2015/0041 SW 03 Rev F prepared by SGC Consulting dated 23 August 2016
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Project No. 2015/0041 SW 04 Rev E prepared by SGC Consulting dated 23 August 2016
Details Sheet Project No. 2015/0041 SW 05 Rev E prepared by SGC Consulting dated 23 August 2016
Acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Consulting Engineers Report No. 150595-02l-DD Rev 03 dated 10 June 2015
(bb) BASIX Certificate No. 629004M_03 dated 29 August 2016
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application, pursuant to Section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment 1979, in the sum of $8,600.00 to be paid within 28 days.
…………….
Jenny Smithson
Commissioner
161692.16 - Annexure A (126 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- MHT Equities v Strathfield Municipal Council [2016] NSWLEC 1428
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1428
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws and whether it was based on proper and relevant considerations. Secondly, the court needed to examine whether the council had acted in a procedurally fair manner when making its decision. This included assessing whether the plaintiff had been given a reasonable opportunity to present its case and respond to any objections. Finally, the court needed to consider whether the council's decision was unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable council could have made such a decision.
The court's reasoning was grounded in a thorough examination of the relevant planning laws and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the council's decision was not made in accordance with the relevant planning laws, as it had not properly considered all the necessary factors. Additionally, the court determined that the council had not acted in a procedurally fair manner, as it had not provided the plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to respond to certain objections. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and therefore unlawful.
Consequently, 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 plaintiff was also awarded costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to proper legal and procedural requirements when making decisions that impact development applications.
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.