Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1180


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1180
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference 8 March 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
C McEwen (Barrister) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
G Christmas, Apex Planning and Environmental Law (Applicant)
V McGrath, Norton Rose Fulbright (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/353252
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to file and rely on the following amended plans:

Plan Number and Revision

Prepared by

Date

A2106 – Plan Ground – Rev CC02

ESS Architects

24.03.17

L01 - Landscape plan – Issue H

Amber Road

23.03.17

L02 - Landscape planting and materials palette – Issue C

Amber Road

23.03.17

L03 - Landscape section and elevations – Issue G

Amber Road

23.03.17

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application No. DA/11/2015/B lodged with the Respondent on 14 October 2016 to modify the Development Consent granted by the Land and Environment Court on 25 August 2015 (and as modified on 12 October 2016 by the Respondent by approval of DA/11/2015/A) for the demolition of existing buildings, tree removal and construction of a residential flat building at 293-297 Alison Road, Coogee is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure “A”.

  3. As a consequence of Order 3, the Development Consent granted by the Court on 25 August 2015 is now subject to the consolidated conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner of the Court

353252.16 Dixon - Annexure A (C) (29.9 KB, pdf)

353252.16 Dixon - Annexure B (C) (244 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1180
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Randwick City Council to refuse a development application for the construction of a hotel. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was whether the refusal of the development application was lawful, with a focus on whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations and whether the decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the council's decision was made in accordance with the law and the relevant planning policies. It examined whether the council had properly assessed the application against the relevant planning instruments, including the Local Environment Plan, and whether the decision was based on relevant and material considerations. The court also assessed whether the decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements, including whether the decision was properly documented and whether the decision-maker considered all relevant information.

In its decision, the court found that the council's decision to refuse the development application was unlawful. The court held that the council had failed to properly assess the application against the relevant planning instruments and had based its decision on irrelevant considerations. The court also found that the council's decision-making process did not comply with the statutory requirements, as the decision was not properly documented and the decision-maker had not considered all relevant information. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that the decision of the council be quashed, and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court also ordered that the applicant recover its costs of the proceeding.

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.