Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Oxford Number 1 Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1245 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 February and 30 May 2016 Date of orders: 15 June 2016 Decision date: 15 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Oxford Number 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Rockdale City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr J Doyle (Applicant)
Baker Ryan Stewart (Applicant)
Ms K Law
Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 159520/2016 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 applicant is granted leave to rely upon amended plans.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No 2015/426 for the conversion of the existing two-storey residential dwelling to a childcare centre with outdoor play area, accommodating 50 children and 10 staff members with associated signage, alterations to fencing and demolition of existing garage is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $12,000 within 21 days of the date of these Orders.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
159520.2016 Morris (C) (188 KB, pdf)
159520.16 Morris _Amended Plans (12.7 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Oxford Number 1 Pty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1245
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in its consideration of the plaintiff's development application, and whether there had been any procedural unfairness. The court was required to examine the council's decision-making process and determine whether it had followed the correct procedures, had considered all relevant factors, and had made a decision that was not unreasonable. The court also needed to consider whether there had been any procedural unfairness in the way that the council had handled the application.
In its judgment, the court found that the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in its consideration of the plaintiff's development application. The court found that the council had followed the correct procedures and had considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The court also found that there had been no procedural unfairness in the way that the council had handled the application. The plaintiff's claim for judicial review was therefore dismissed. In light of this finding, the court made no orders for costs.
The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of following proper procedures and considering all relevant factors when making decisions about development applications. It also underscores the need for councils to act reasonably and fairly in their decision-making processes.
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.