Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sell & Parker Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1586 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19 September & 17 October 2017 Date of orders: 19 October 2017 Decision date: 19 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Maston AC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sell and Parker Pty Ltd (ACN 000 101 315) (Applicant)
Minister for Planning (Respondent)Representation: Mr J Johnson, Allens(Applicant)
Ms L Sims, Department of Planning (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/126126 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans and documents:
Document
Revision
Date
Prepared by:
(consultant)
Drawing DA-1049-14 A101 Rev M
21/9/2017
Algorry Zappia and Associates Pty Ltd
Drawing DA-1049-14 A301 Rev H
27/9/2017
Algorry Zappia and Associates Pty Ltd
Drawing 14023-16-001-FH-01 Rev P4
25/9/2017
MJ Harvey and Associates Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-000-I
22/9/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-101-J
22/9/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-401-G
15/8/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-402-I
22/9/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-403-G
15/8/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-404-G
22/9/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Drawing SS15-3178-501-I
22/9/2017
Site Image (NSW) Pty Ltd
Town Planning Report
29/9/2017
Tim Ward (Ethos Urban)
Acoustic Report
25/9/2017
Renzo Tonin and Associates
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amended plans and documents listed above under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Modification application No. SSDMod 16_8001, is approved, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
John Maston
Acting Commissioner of the Land & Environment Court of NSW
Annexure A (75.7 KB, pdf)
Plans (8.24 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Sell and Parker Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1586
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1586
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister for Planning had the authority to reject the development application and whether the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislation and applicable planning principles. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Minister had acted irrationally, capriciously or in a procedurally unfair manner. The plaintiff argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and had not taken into account all relevant considerations.
The court found that the Minister for Planning had the authority to reject the development application, as it was within the scope of the relevant legislation. However, the court also found that the Minister had failed to properly consider all relevant factors and had acted in a procedurally unfair manner. The court held that the Minister had not adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the development, nor had they taken into account the impact on the local community. The court found that the Minister's decision was therefore invalid, and ordered that the Minister approve the development application, subject to certain conditions.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Minister for Planning to reject the development application was invalid, and that the Minister must approve the development application, subject to certain conditions relating to environmental protection and community impact. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the proceedings.
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.