Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1033


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

  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 amended plans and documents referred to in the conditions of approval contained in Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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”.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1033
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1033
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning, the plaintiff, Project 28, challenged the decision of the Minister for Planning to refuse a development application for the construction of a multi-level car park in Sydney. The dispute centred on the interpretation of zoning laws and the proper application of planning principles in determining whether the proposed development was consistent with the planning scheme. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

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.