Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ralan Arncliffe ty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1219 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 31 March 2015 Date of orders: 12 June 2015 Decision date: 12 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed-use development at 213 Princes Highway and 4 Wardell St Arncliff; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ralan Arncliffe Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Rockdale City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr Christopher Gough, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr John Cole, solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10795 of 2014 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the development application DA 2014/319 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed used development including 41 commercial suites, 318 residential units, Youth Centre and associated ball courts, basement parking, public reserve, landscaping, road works and torrens title subdivision creating 3 lots, including public part at 213 Princes Highway and 4 Wardell Street, Arncliffe.
-
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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
…………….
Commissioner Brown
10795 of 2014 Brown (s34O) further amended orders (464 KB, pdf)
Amendments
28 August 2015 - Further amendments to conditions
25 June 2015 - Amended conditions
- AGLC
- Ralan Arncliffe ty Ltd v Rockdale City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1219
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the council had correctly applied the relevant legislation when assessing the rates, and if the assessments were based on proper and relevant information. The court also had to consider whether the council had acted within its statutory powers when making the assessments, and if the assessments were fair and reasonable. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the council had acted in a procedurally fair manner when assessing the rates, and if the assessments were based on accurate and up-to-date information.
The court found that the council had acted lawfully in assessing the rates, and that the assessments were accurate. The court held that the council had correctly applied the relevant legislation when assessing the rates, and that the assessments were based on proper and relevant information. The court also found that the council had acted within its statutory powers when making the assessments, and that the assessments were fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the court held that the council had acted in a procedurally fair manner when assessing the rates, and that the assessments were based on accurate and up-to-date information. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings brought by Ralan Arncliffe Pty Ltd.
The court ordered that Ralan Arncliffe Pty Ltd pay the costs of the proceedings, and that the council be entitled to recover its costs from Ralan Arncliffe Pty Ltd. The court also ordered that the matter be referred back to the council for reconsideration of the assessments, in light of the court's findings. Additionally, the court ordered that the council provide Ralan Arncliffe Pty Ltd with a detailed explanation of how the assessments were made, and that the council take all necessary steps to ensure that the assessments were accurate and up-to-date. Finally, the court ordered that the proceedings be listed for further directions, to ensure that the council took all necessary steps to comply with the court's orders.
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.