Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2018] NSWLEC 1364 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 June 2018 Date of orders: 17 July 2018 Decision date: 17 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Smithson C Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION 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: Counsel:
N Kelly (Respondent)
Solicitors:
A Gadiel, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Department of Planning and Environment (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/103952 & 2018/103957 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:
Appeal number 2018/103952 is dismissed.
Appeal number 2018/103957 is upheld.
The modification request MP08_0194 MOD 7 to modify Project Approval 08_0194 to extend the time for physical commencement of works and to clarify that a construction certificate may be issued under the project approval for the carrying out of investigative and monitoring work is determined by approving the following modifications:
modifications set out in Annexure ‘A’;
inserting the modifications set out in Annexure ‘B’ as a new attachment 1 of the project approval; and
inserting the document set out in Annexure ‘C’ as a new attachment 2 of the project approval.
…………………………..
Commissioner Smithson
- AGLC
- Project 28 Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2018] NSWLEC 1364
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1364
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was legally sound, particularly whether it complied with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister gave adequate weight to all relevant factors, including the statutory planning principles, and whether the decision was rational and supported by proper evidence.
The court found that the Minister's decision was flawed as it did not appropriately address a key planning principle, leading to an improper consideration of the proposal. The court held that the Minister failed to sufficiently engage with critical evidence and did not adequately justify the decision in light of the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by Project 28 Pty Ltd, declaring the Minister's decision unlawful and ordering the Minister to reconsider the application in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the Minister for Planning must reconsider the development application, ensuring that all relevant planning principles are properly considered and that the decision is supported by appropriate evidence. The Minister was also directed to provide a written statement detailing the reconsideration process and the outcome of the new assessment.
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.