Shed Architects Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1008


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Shed Architects Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1008
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 November 2016
Date of orders: 09 January 2017
Decision date: 09 January 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Development Application: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environment and Planning Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Shed Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A. Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
M. Flick, The Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00232459
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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans.

  3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed pursuant to section 97B of the Environment and Planning Assessment Act 1979.

  4. Application D/2016/217 for alterations and additions to an existing five storey commercial building including internal changes, changes to the external façade at 113-115 Oxford St, Darlinghurst is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

…………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner

232459.16 - Annexure A - Conditions of Consent (146 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA200C _ BASEMENT PLAN (456 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA201C _ GROUND FLOOR PLAN (239 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA202C _ FIRST FLOOR PLAN (161 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA203C _ SECOND FLOOR PLAN (156 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA204C _ THIRD FLOOR PLAN (156 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA205C _ FOURTH FLOOR PLAN (160 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA207C _ ROOF PLAN (98.1 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA300C _ ELEVATION - ARNOLD PLACE (204 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA301C _ ELEVATIONS - CROWN OXFORD STS (146 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA302C _ DETAIL ELEVATION - BAY WINDOWS (150 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA400C _ SECTION 1 (199 KB, pdf)

232459.16_113-115 OXFORD ST _ DA401C _ DTL SECTION - UPPER LEVEL FACADE (155 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Shed Architects Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1008
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1008
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Shed Architects Pty Ltd, a company engaged in architectural services, and the Council of the City of Sydney, a local government authority. The dispute centred around the alleged failure of the council to grant a development application for a proposed building, which the applicant claimed had been submitted in accordance with the relevant planning laws. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues for determination included whether the council had acted in a manner that was unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair in its handling of the development application. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the council's actions constituted a breach of any statutory duty owed to the applicant, and whether the applicant had suffered any loss or damage as a result of the council's conduct. The applicant also sought a declaration that the council's refusal to grant the development application was invalid and an order mandating the council to approve the application.

The court found that the council had not acted unlawfully, irrationally or procedurally unfairly in its assessment of the development application. It held that the council had properly considered the relevant planning laws and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court further found that the applicant had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the council's conduct and, accordingly, the applicant's claim for damages was dismissed. The court also rejected the applicant's request for a declaration that the council's refusal to grant the development application was invalid, as well as its request for an order mandating the council to approve the application.

The court's final orders were that the applicant's claim be dismissed in its entirety, with no orders as to costs. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper planning procedures and the limited circumstances in which courts will intervene in the decision-making processes of local government authorities.

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.