Pudig v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1069


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Pudig & Ors v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1069
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 3 February 2017
Date of orders: 16 February 2017
Decision date: 16 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: adaptive reuse of existing warehouse, including partial retention of existing warehouse for multi-unit housing development - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Grant Pudig (First Applicant)
Karyn McLeod (Second Applicant)
Jodie Benton (Third Applicant)
Benn Bryant (Fourth Applicant)

The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Ms Orbell, solicitor - Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms Bullmore, solicitor - The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/234946
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application D/2015/1752 for the adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse, including partial retention of existing warehouse for multi-unit housing development at 186 Rochford Street, Erskineville.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted for the Applicants to rely on the following amended plans:

Drawing Number

Architect

Date

101 Revision E Basement Floor Plan

Environa studio

1/12/2016

102 Revision E Level 1 Floor Plan

Environa studio

1/12/2016

103 Revision E Level 2 Floor Plan

Environa studio

1/12/2016

104 Revision E Level 3 Floor Plan

Environa studio

1/12/2016

110 Revision E Roof Plan

Environa studio

1/12/2016

120 Revision E Section AA

Environa studio

1/12/2016

121 Revision E Section BB

Environa studio

1/12/2016

122 Revision E Section CC

Environa studio

1/12/2016

123 Revision E Section DD

Environa studio

1/12/2016

130 Revision E West Elevation

Environa studio

1/12/2016

131 Revision E East Elevation

Environa studio

1/12/2016

132 Revision E North Elevation

Environa studio

1/12/2016

133 Revision E South Elevatio

Environa studio

1/12/2016

  1. The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs under s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) in the amount of $ 2,640.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application no. D/2015/1752 for adaptive reuse of the existing building including partial retention of the existing warehouse facades and demolition, excavation and construction of multi-dwelling housing comprising 6 three-bedroom townhouses and basement car parking for 6 cars at 186 Rochford Street, Erskineville is approved subject to:

  1. conditions contained in Annexure "A"; and

  2. plans contained in Annexure “B”.

…………….

Commissioner

G Brown

234946.16 Annexure A (C) (178 KB, pdf)

234946.16 Annexure B (Plans) (3.50 MB, pdf)

Amendments

17 February 2017 - Changed file type of Annexure A to pdf

Details
AGLC
Pudig v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1069
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1069
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pudig v The Council of the City of Sydney was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved a challenge by the plaintiff, Mr. Pudig, against a decision made by the Council of the City of Sydney. The council had revoked a previously granted development approval for a commercial property located within the city. The plaintiff argued that the revocation was unlawful and sought a judicial review of the council's decision.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had the lawful authority to revoke the development approval and whether the council's decision was procedurally fair and justified. The court had to determine whether the council's actions complied with the relevant legislative provisions and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff also contended that the revocation decision was affected by bias and an error in law.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Leembruggen examined the statutory framework governing development approvals and the council's powers to revoke such approvals. The court held that the council did have the authority to revoke the development approval under the relevant legislation. However, the court found that the council had failed to provide the plaintiff with a valid reason for the revocation, thus breaching the principles of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court determined that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence, and there was an error in the interpretation of the applicable law. As a result, the court quashed the council's decision to revoke the development approval.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Council of the City of Sydney to revoke the development approval for the commercial property be quashed. The court directed that the development approval be reinstated, and the council was ordered to take steps to ensure that the decision-making process complied with the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.