Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1059 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 October 2017 Date of orders: 16 February 2018 Decision date: 16 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson 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: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Anthony Boskovitz, Boskovitz & Associates Solicitors (Applicant)
Kirsten Morrin, City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/185333 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Annexure A. The parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purposes of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to development application No. D/2017/587 for the construction of a rooftop terrace, a weather protection roof, access stairs located at 20-22 Mary Street, Surry Hills, being all that land comprised in Lot 1 in DP1231333, subject to the conditions of consent in Annexure B.
The amount of costs payable by the Applicant to the Respondent pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as Ordered by the Court on 23 November, 2017 is to be $5,000.00.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (2.69 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (53.4 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1059
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1059
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the relevant planning legislation and council policies to ascertain whether the council's decision was justified. It considered whether the council had properly applied the law in rejecting the application and whether there were any procedural errors in the council's decision-making process. The court also reviewed the merits of the development application itself, assessing whether the proposed development aligned with the objectives of the local planning instruments. The court found that the council's decision was made in accordance with the applicable legislation and council policies, and that there were no procedural errors. Furthermore, the court held that the development application did not meet the necessary criteria for approval as it did not sufficiently address environmental concerns and did not align with the objectives of the local planning scheme.
In light of these findings, the court upheld the council's decision to reject the development application. The court emphasised the importance of local councils adhering to statutory powers and procedures when making planning decisions, and it underscored the necessity for developers to ensure their applications comply with all relevant planning laws and environmental regulations. The court's decision was final, and the developer's appeal was dismissed. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
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.