Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1445


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1445
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 July 2018
Date of orders: 23 August 2018
Decision date: 23 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Blakely AC
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
T Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
M Pearce, North Sydney Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/19113
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 Court Act are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans and documents as referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.

  2. The written request made, pursuant to clause 4.6 of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013, to vary the maximum height standard prepared by Brett Brown of Ingham Planning Pty Ltd dated July 2018 is upheld.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA 404/2017 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new multi dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings and onsite parking at 1 Lower Bent Street, Neutral Bay, is approved subject to the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Blakely

Annexure A (198 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 1445
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1445
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd, trading as Rebel Bar, sought judicial review of a decision by the North Sydney Council to refuse its application to extend its trading hours. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the council’s local environmental plan (LEP) concerning late-night trading. The matter was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the LEP was correctly interpreted and applied in this instance. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had the discretion to refuse the application under the relevant provisions of the LEP and if the council's decision was based on lawful and relevant considerations.

The court examined the LEP provisions to ascertain the scope of the council's discretion in relation to trading hours extensions. It found that the LEP did provide the council with a degree of discretion in granting such extensions, particularly in relation to maintaining the amenity of the local area. The court also assessed whether the council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or procedural unfairness. In doing so, the court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on whether the council had properly exercised its discretion and whether its decision was supported by the evidence presented. Ultimately, the court concluded that the council's decision was lawful and appropriately exercised within the parameters of the LEP. The court found that the council had considered relevant factors and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

As the application for judicial review was dismissed, the court did not make any orders altering the council's decision. The refusal of the application to extend trading hours by Rebel MH Bent Pty Ltd remained in place, as per the council's decision.

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.