Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Miczar Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1256 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3, 15 & 22 May 2017 Date of orders: 26 May 2017 Decision date: 26 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders
ORDER APPEAL - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - ordersLegislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Miczar Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Reid (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Solicitor (Respondent)
Andrews & Holm (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00383380, 2017/00033760 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: Miczar Pty Ltd appeals against both an order issued by the Council (in proceedings number 2016/383380) and the deemed refusal of an application to modify development consent (in proceedings number 2017/33760), which application concerns the subject matter of the order. On 10 February 2017, an order was made that both proceedings “run together and that evidence in one proceedings be evidence in the other.”
-
In each of the proceedings, 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.
-
In proceedings 2017/33760:
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
-
The applicant is granted leave to rely upon amended plans referred to in conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked Annexure A.
-
The appeal is upheld;
-
Development Consent is granted to modification M/2015/219 at 597 Darling Street, Balmain, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked Annexure A.
-
As a consequence of order (3), development consent D/2013/198 is subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of consent as set out in Annexure B.
The Court notes the agreement between the parties that:
-
Upon the making of the orders set out above, the respondent will withdraw s121B Order EPA/2016/417 dated 5 December 2016.
-
In proceedings 2016/383380:
Upon the making of the orders set out above in 2016/383380, the Court notes that the respondent will withdraw s121B Order EPA/2016/417 dated 5 December 2016;
The applicant is given leave to discontinue appeal 2016/383380 upon receipt of the respondent’s withdrawal of the above s121B Order, with each party to pay its own costs.
……………………….
Joanne GrayCommissioner of the Court
383380.16_ 33760.17 Annexure A (C) (90.6 KB, pdf)
383380.16 33760.17 Annexure B (C) (310 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Miczar Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1256
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address were whether the condition was a valid and enforceable term of the development approval and whether the Council had the right to impose such a condition retrospectively. The applicant argued that the condition was not a term of the original approval and, as such, could not be enforced. The Council contended that the condition was valid and enforceable, relying on the general powers conferred by the Development Act 2006.
The court examined the relevant legislative framework and the circumstances surrounding the approval. It found that the condition was indeed a term of the approval, albeit not explicitly stated, and could be reasonably inferred from the context of the approval process. The court held that the Council had the authority to impose such a condition and that it was enforceable. The applicant's challenge was dismissed, and the Council's enforcement of the condition was upheld.
As a result, the court ruled in favour of the Inner West Council, finding that the condition was valid and enforceable. The Council was permitted to enforce the condition requiring its approval before any changes could be made to the approved development. The applicant's application was dismissed with costs.
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.