Sell and Parker Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1586


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

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. 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)

Details
AGLC
Sell and Parker Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2017] NSWLEC 1586
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1586
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Sell and Parker Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and the Minister for Planning, the defendant. The dispute arose from a decision by the Minister for Planning to reject an application by Sell and Parker Pty Ltd for approval to develop land at a particular location. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the decision of the Minister for Planning was invalid, along with an order for the Minister to approve the development application.

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.