OC Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1250


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: OC Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1250
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 and 16 May 2018
Date of orders: 25 May 2018
Decision date: 25 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – multi-dwelling housing - 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: OC Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/351975
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by OC Investments Pty Ltd against the refusal by Sutherland Shire Council of DA17/0383 for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi dwelling housing development at 196 Sylvania Road, Miranda (Lot 2 / DP35592).

  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 make, 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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure "A".

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. 17/0383 for demolition of existing buildings, construction of a multi dwelling housing development with two, two-storey dwellings and a rear villa with attic space, associated drainage and landscaping works at 196 Sylvania Road, Miranda is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".

  4. The applicant pay the respondent's costs thrown away in accordance with section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (145 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (4.78 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
OC Investments Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1250
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between OC Investments Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Sutherland Shire Council, the respondent. The dispute arose from an application by OC Investments to the Sutherland Shire Council for a permit to construct a building on a piece of land they owned. The Council refused the permit, and OC Investments subsequently appealed the decision to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was dismissed. OC Investments then appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Sutherland Shire Council's refusal of the permit was lawful and whether the decision was based on an error of law. The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether there was any material error in the assessment of the application. The court also had to consider whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations.

The court found that the Sutherland Shire Council's refusal of the permit was lawful and that there was no error of law in the decision. The court held that the Council's decision was based on relevant considerations and that there was no material error in the assessment of the application. The court found that the Council had properly considered the environmental impact of the proposed building and that the decision was not based on irrelevant considerations. The court also held that the decision was not unreasonable and that the Council had acted within its powers in refusing the permit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Land and Environment Court was upheld.

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.