Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1466


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1466
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 August 2017
Date of orders: 25 August 2017
Decision date: 25 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Parker Logan Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Boskovitz, Boskovitz and Associates Solicitors (Applicant)
Ms R Bullmore, The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/119458
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 for the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Drawing Number

Drawing Title

Architect

Dated

S34 100
Issue A

Basement Floor Plan

NTA

09.08.17

S34 101
Issue B

Ground Floor Plan

NTA

17.08.17

S34 102
Issue A

First Floor Plan

NTA

09.08.17

S34 103
Issue A

Second Floor Plan

NTA

09.08.17

S34 104
Issue B

Third Floor Plan

NTA

17.08.17

S34 105
Issue A

Roof Plan

NTA

09.08.17

S34 200
Issue A

Elevations 1

NTA

09.08.17

S34 201
Issue A

Elevations 2

NTA

09.08.17

S34 202
Issue B

Elevations 3

NTA

17.08.17

S34 250
Issue A

Booster Detail

NTA

09.08.17

S34 251
Issue A

Egress Stair Detail

NTA

09.08.17

S34 300
Issue A

Section 1

NTA

09.08.17

S34 301
Issue A

Section 2

NTA

09.08.17

S34 500
Issue A

Draft Strata Subdivision Plan

NTA

17.08.17

14-873/1
Rev. D

Landscape Plan

Captivate Landscape Design

31/10/16

771665M_04

BASIX Certificate

23.08.17

  1. The amendments to the plans listed in (a) are minor and there be no order as to costs under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).  

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application D/2017/280 which amends Development Consent D/2015/544 (D/2015/544 approved demolition of existing improvements and the construction of 2 x 4 storey residential flat buildings, containing a total of 24 dwellings, over a basement car parking level, and strata subdivision) to include 3 additional dwellings (being 2 x studio and 1 x 2 Bedroom dwellings), allocation of 4 dwellings as affordable housing units and dwelling layout modifications to the dwellings approved under D/2015/544.

  4. Development Application D/2017/280 is approved subject to:

  1. conditions contained in Annexure "A"; and

  2. plans contained in Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Commissioner O’Neill

119458.17 O'Neill - Annexure A - Slip Rule (180 KB, pdf)

119458.17 O'Neill - Annexure B - Plans (7.87 MB, pdf)

Amendments

13 December 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, amend orders of 25 August 2017 so that the first line of Condition (A2) of Annexure A is amended as follows:

1. The number “3” is replaced with the number “11”.
2. The word “followings” is replaced with the word “follows”.

As a result the first line of Condition (A2) of Annexure A now reads:


“(A2) That Part (a) of Condition 11 of D/2015/544 shall be replaced as follows:”

Details
AGLC
Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1466
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1466
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd, the applicant, against the Council of the City of Sydney, the respondent, the case was heard before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue at hand was whether the respondent had acted lawfully in rejecting the applicant's application for a development approval. The applicant sought to develop a site in Surry Hills into a commercial building, but the respondent council had denied the application on the basis that it did not align with the local environment plan.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of the respondent's decision in rejecting the applicant's development application. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant planning legislation. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision was well within their statutory powers and was based on proper consideration of the local environment plan and other relevant factors.

In examining the decision, the court found that the respondent had indeed acted within its statutory powers. The court observed that the respondent had provided detailed reasons for its decision, and that these reasons were consistent with the applicable planning legislation and policies. The court further noted that the respondent had taken into account all relevant factors, including the local environment plan, in making its decision. As a result, the court concluded that the respondent's decision was not unreasonable, and dismissed the applicant's appeal.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, and that any orders made in relation to the costs be subject to any applicable statutory provisions.

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.