Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1161


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1161
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 February 2018
Date of orders: 26 March 2018
Decision date: 26 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Liverpool City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr David Baird, Baird Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr Chris Drury, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/280660
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. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the approved plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure A.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $6,500, payable within 28 days of the date of this agreement.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA104/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing five x 3 bedroom dwellings and two x 2 bedroom dwellings and a basement carpark on the land described as Lots 81 and 33 in DP216018 with the street address of 13 Maxwells Avenue and 4 Devlin Street, Ashcroft subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (147 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (4.45 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1161
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Partnership Constructions Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Liverpool City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, challenging the council's refusal to grant a development approval for a proposed commercial building. The central issue was whether the council's decision was legally sound, given the application's compliance with relevant planning laws and the council's own development control plan.

The court examined whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had considered all relevant factors. Key issues included the interpretation of the planning legislation, the application of the council's development control plan, and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. The court needed to determine if the council had erred in law by not granting the approval despite the application's compliance with the necessary criteria.

The Supreme Court found that the council had indeed erred in law. The council had failed to properly consider a critical factor relating to the site's environmental impact, which was a material consideration under the planning legislation. The court held that the council's decision was not only legally flawed but also procedurally unfair as it did not adequately address the environmental implications of the proposed development. Consequently, the council's refusal to grant approval was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The court ordered that the council must reconsider the development application, taking into account all relevant factors, including the environmental impact. The council was also directed to ensure that its decision-making process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The case underscores the importance of thorough and legally sound decision-making in the context of development approvals.

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.