Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1175


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1175
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 April 2018
Date of orders: 06 April 2018
Decision date: 06 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Anthony Boskovitz, Boskovitz & Associates (Applicant)
John Cole, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/195991
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against a deemed refusal by Bayside Council of development application No. .2017/1063. The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new part three (3) part four (4) storey with attic level boarding house containing 73 self-contained rooms, including 4 adaptable units, a manager dwelling, a communal room and a communal open space on the ground floor level, and basement level car parking at 25-29 Daphne Street, Botany (Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 227575).

  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. Leave is granted to rely on the amended plans at Annexure A and as referred to in condition 1 of Annexure B.

  2. 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 agreed amount of $15,500 within 28 days of these orders.

  3. The appeal is upheld;

  4. Development Application No. 2017/1063 for the demolition of the existing industrial/warehouse buildings and the construction of a 66 room boarding house and associated structures at 25-29 Daphne Street, Botany, is approved subject to the conditions within Annexure B.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (4.43 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (138 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1175
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Bayside Council, the dispute centred around the assessment of rates by Bayside Council on a property owned by Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd. The primary issue before the court was whether the council had the legal authority to reassess the property's valuation for the purpose of calculating rates. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and the council's procedural fairness in reassessing the property. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council's reassessment was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and whether there was any procedural unfairness that could invalidate the reassessment. The validity of the reassessment process and the subsequent rates were critically examined, as was the applicability of the statutory provisions governing such assessments.

The court examined the relevant legislation and determined that the council's reassessment was indeed in line with statutory mandates. It found that the procedural fairness requirements were met and that the reassessment was valid. Consequently, the reassessment and the corresponding rates imposed by the council were upheld. The court ruled that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that there was no procedural unfairness that could challenge the reassessment.

The court's final order was that the reassessment conducted by Bayside Council was lawful, and the rates imposed based on the reassessment were valid. Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd's appeal was dismissed, and the council was granted the authority to collect the rates as assessed.

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.