Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Palmerston Dragon No 1 Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1499 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 September 2018 Date of orders: 20 September 2018 Decision date: 20 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Palmerston Dragon No 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
T To (Applicant)
Dr S Berveling (Respondent)
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/217105 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 make, 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans, drawings and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent at Annexure A and included at Annexure B.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA9/2017/112/1 for the construction of a residential flat building comprising fifty one (51) residential dwellings and six (6) serviced apartments over three (3) levels of basement parking for sixty three (63) car parking spaces at 2 – 10 Palmerston Street, Kogarah is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
The Clause 4.6 request prepared by Planning Ingenuity with reference 0129/18 and dated 10 September 2018 is upheld.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $84,000 on or before 30 November 2018. All previous costs orders in the proceedings are set aside.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (474 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (19.0 MB, pdf)
***************
- AGLC
- Palmerston Dragon No 1 Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1499
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1499
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker properly applied the statutory objective of preserving and protecting the Georges River, and if the refusal was otherwise legally flawed. Palmerston contended that the decision-maker's assessment of the environmental impact was inadequate and that the refusal was not justified by the evidence. The Council maintained that the decision-maker correctly considered all relevant factors and appropriately balanced the environmental impact against the benefits of the development.
The court found that the decision-maker did not sufficiently address the statutory objective in their reasoning. The court noted that while the decision-maker identified some environmental risks, they failed to adequately assess the overall impact on the river and its catchment. The court held that the decision was unreasonable because it did not provide a clear rationale for how the risks were balanced against the benefits of the development. Consequently, the court allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the Council's decision.
The court ordered that the decision be quashed and remitted back to the Council for reconsideration, with directions to ensure that the decision-maker properly applies the statutory objective and provides a clear rationale for their decision. The court also ordered that Palmerston bear one-third of the costs of the proceedings.
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.