Ramm Investments Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1427


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ramm Investments Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1427
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2, 24 and 30 July 2018
Date of orders: 15 August 2018
Decision date: 15 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: Ramm Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Campbelltown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Applicant)
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/369487
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. 4202/2016 for the construction of 22 dwellings with basement car parking and road works in Collis Place and landscaping works at 124 Minto Road, Minto is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

  4. The applicant will pay the respondent’s costs thrown away in accordance with section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $4,500.00.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (65.4 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ramm Investments Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1427
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by Ramm Investments Pty Ltd against a decision of the Campbelltown City Council to refuse an application for development approval. The applicant sought to develop a property in accordance with a development consent granted by the council in 2016. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the relevant planning instruments and the conditions attached to the original approval. The appeal was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues involved the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the development consent, and whether the council had acted lawfully in refusing the application. The court needed to determine if the applicant's proposed development complied with the approved consent, and whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the planning instruments. Furthermore, the court had to assess if the council had correctly applied its own policies and procedures in making the decision.

The court found that the council's refusal to grant development approval was not justified. It held that the applicant's proposed development was consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved consent, and that the council had not properly considered the planning instruments in making its decision. The court concluded that the council had failed to apply its own policies and procedures correctly, leading to an unlawful decision. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter was remitted to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The court ordered that the council reconsider the applicant's development application, taking into account the court's findings and the terms and conditions of the approved consent. The council was directed to make a decision in accordance with the law and its own policies and procedures. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the council.

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.