Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Pier Property Corporation v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1201 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 21 April 2017 Date of orders: 21 April 2017 Decision date: 21 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: Pier Property Corporation (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/243449 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:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Condition 1 in Annexure 'A' below the heading ‘1. Approved Plans and Documents’.
Appeal upheld; and
Section 96 Modification Application (MA 16/0107) for the modification to DA 15/1178 to provide 2 rooftop communal open spaces, reconfigure and relocates service cores, revise internal layouts and mix of units is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’
…………….
Michael Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
243449.16 Annexure A (C) (118 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Pier Property Corporation v Sutherland Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1201
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1201
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the Court had to determine involved whether the Council's decision was lawful and if the Council had acted irrationally or outside the scope of its statutory powers. The developer argued that the Council had failed to follow its own development control instruments and that the decision was not supported by proper reasons. The Council contended that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislation and policies, and that the developer had not demonstrated any bias or procedural unfairness.
The Court held that the Council's decision was not unlawful. It found that the Council had properly exercised its discretion under the legislation and had provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the development application. The Court further determined that the Council's decision was not irrational and that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness. The developer's claim for judicial review was dismissed.
As a result of the Court's determination, the developer's appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision to reject the development application was upheld. The Court found that the Council had acted within its statutory powers and had provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. The developer was ordered to pay the Council's 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.