Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ryals v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1520 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 July 2016 Date of orders: 07 November 2016 Decision date: 07 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson, C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Angus Ryals (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms R Bullmore, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/159792 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 against the refusal of Development Application No D/2015/1275 for XXX (the proposal) at 140-144 Parramatta Road, Camperdown (the site) by the City of Sydney (the Council).
-
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 are:
The Applicant is granted to leave to amend its application to rely on the following plans and documents:
Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Andrew Martin Planning Pty Ltd dated September 2016.
Ground Floor Plan, First Floor Plan, Second & Third Floor Plan Issue H, DWG. RC98121 marked up in red and received by Council on 15 September 2016.
Basement Parking Floor Plan DWG No. RC98121 dated October 2016 incorporating handwritten amendments received by Council on 20 October 2016.
Plan of Management dated November 2016.
The applicant is to pay Council's costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $6.710.00.
The Appeal is upheld.
Approval is granted to DA/2015/1275 the change of use of 39 residential units within the residential flat building at 140 - 144 Parramatta Road, Camperdown to serviced apartments subject to the conditions at Annexure "A".
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
159792.16 - Annexure A (27.8 KB, pdf)
Amendments
11 November 2016 - Amended 'Date of Orders' and 'Date of Decision' on Cover sheet.
- AGLC
- Ryals v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1520
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1520
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's approval of the building was in accordance with the relevant planning instruments and whether the council had failed to consider certain matters as required by the relevant legislation. The court was required to determine whether the council's decision was lawful, whether it was made in accordance with the relevant planning instruments, and whether the council had acted in an unreasonable or irrational manner.
The court held that the council's approval of the building was in accordance with the relevant planning instruments, and that the approval process was lawful. The court found that the council had considered all relevant matters and had not acted unreasonably or irrationally. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and dismissed the action. The court also made an order for costs against the plaintiff.
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.