Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: PreTech Properties Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1432 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 July, 12 and 29 August 2016 Date of orders: 07 September 2016 Decision date: 07 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Hussey AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Construction of townhouses, owners consent, density of development, on-site car parking, stormwater drainage, conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: PreTech Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
PENRITH CITY COUNCIL (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr S Nash (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mr C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers(Applicant)
Mr M Bullivant, Penrith City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/154188 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, 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 amend the development application to rely on the following plans:
A01, Revision D Site Plan & Ground Floor Plan
A02, Revision C First Floor Plan
A03, Revision B Elevations & Section
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 14/1160 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 7 x 3 bedroom townhouses at 65 Jones Street, Kingswood NSW is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.
…………….
Acting Commissioner Hussey
154188.16 Hussey (C) (201 KB, pdf)
Amendments
23 September 2016 - Added Counsel for respondent
- AGLC
- PreTech Properties Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1432
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1432
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The court had to consider whether the Council's assessment of the application aligned with the relevant planning policies and whether the reasons provided for the refusal were lawful, rational, and based on proper consideration of the evidence. The court was also required to examine whether there were any procedural flaws in the Council's decision-making process.
The court concluded that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence. The court found that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment. The court held that the reasons provided by the Council for the refusal were lawful, rational, and based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The court further determined that there were no procedural flaws in the Council's decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Council to refuse the development application was upheld.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and costs be awarded to the respondent.
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.