Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1033 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 September, 18 October, 22 November, 7, 19 & 20 December 2016 Date of orders: 31 January 2017 Decision date: 31 January 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: Project 28 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Minister for Planning (Respondent)Representation: Mr A Gadiel, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms L McAndrew, Department of Planning (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/178476 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 amended plans and documents referred to in the conditions of approval contained in Annexure “A”.
The appeal is upheld.
Modification no. MP08-0194 MOD 3 to modify Project Approval no. MP08-0194 to facilitate a proposed service station and associated food and drink premises located within Kings Forest Precinct 1 on land identified as Lot 7 DP 875447 Tweed Coast Road Kings Forest is determined by approving the modifications set out in Annexure “A”.
As a consequence of the above Orders, Project Approval no. MP08-0194 is now subject to consolidated, modified conditions of approval set out in Annexure “B”.
…………….
Commissioner Chilcott
178476.16 Chilcott (C) Annexure A (632 KB, pdf)
178476.16 Chilcott (C) Annexure B (1.34 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1033
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1033
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. This involved examining whether the Minister correctly applied the relevant planning policies and principles, and whether the refusal was based on sufficient grounds. The court also considered whether the Minister had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair to the applicant.
The court found that the Minister's decision was flawed as it did not adequately address the specific considerations outlined in the planning scheme and failed to provide adequate reasons for the refusal. The court held that the Minister's decision was not rationally connected to the statutory objectives and planning policies, and that the Minister had not given proper weight to the applicant's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the decision of the Minister and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.
The orders of the court included quashing the decision of the Minister for Planning to refuse the development application and remitting the matter to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment. The court further directed that the Minister must provide detailed reasons for any new decision, ensuring that all relevant considerations were properly addressed and justified.
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.