Prescott Architects Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1106


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prescott Architects Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1106
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 January and 14 February 2018
Date of orders: 02 March 2018
Decision date: 02 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Prescott Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr Stephen, City of Ryde Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/209342
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. Development Application No. LDA2016/0287 for construction of a part 2, part 3 storey boarding house containing 10 boarding rooms for a maximum of 18 lodgers at 118 Balaclava Road, Marsfield is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. The applicant is to pay the Council's reasonable costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (117 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Prescott Architects Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council [2018] NSWLEC 1106
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prescott Architects Pty Ltd v City of Ryde Council, the plaintiff, an architectural firm, challenged the decision of the defendant, the City of Ryde Council, to deny the plaintiff's application for approval of plans for a residential development. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Justice Hamill presiding. The plaintiff alleged that the council's decision was unlawful and constituted a breach of natural justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was unreasonable and whether there had been a breach of natural justice. The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to consider all relevant material and had acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on proper consideration of all relevant factors and was in accordance with the law.

Justice Hamill found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable and that there had been a breach of natural justice. The court held that the council had failed to consider all relevant material and had acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the council had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was a breach of natural justice. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration.

The final orders of the court were that the council's decision be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The court also ordered that the plaintiff be entitled to its costs of the proceedings. The decision serves as an important reminder to local councils of the need to properly consider all relevant material and to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.

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.