Shorter Developments Pty Ltd v The City of Canterbury Bankstown

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1373


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Shorter Developments Pty Ltd v The City of Canterbury Bankstown [2017] NSWLEC 1373
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 July 2017
Date of orders: 17 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
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: Shorter Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
The City of Canterbury-Bankstown (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors
Mr B Zahr, Zahr Partners (Applicant)
Mr M Bonanno, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/87922
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 for the Applicant to amend its development application to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 5 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA 500/2016 for demolition of existing structures across two lots of land and construction of 18 new townhouses (11 townhouses at 11 Rhonda Avenue and 7 townhouses at 86 Shorter Avenue) with basement carparking and Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots and strata subdivision of each lot at 86 Shorter Avenue and 11 Rhonda Avenue, Narwee is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Smithson

87922.17 Smithson - ZAHR - Updated Drawings (6.10 MB, pdf)

87922.17 Smithson (C) (329 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Shorter Developments Pty Ltd v The City of Canterbury Bankstown [2017] NSWLEC 1373
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1373
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Shorter Developments Pty Ltd contested The City of Canterbury Bankstown over a planning dispute concerning a property located at Bankstown. The primary issue was whether the council's decision to deny a development application for the property was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies. This decision followed a previous ruling that had allowed the development, which was subsequently overturned by the council. The court had to determine whether the council's decision to revoke the approval was based on appropriate grounds and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of planning legislation and the principles of administrative law, particularly concerning the scope of judicial review of planning decisions. The court had to examine whether the council's decision to deny the development application was rational and whether the decision-making process adhered to legal standards. Additionally, the court considered whether the council acted within its statutory powers and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the manner in which the decision was made. The validity of the council's reasons for revoking the approval and the adequacy of those reasons were also scrutinized.

The Federal Court found that the council's decision to deny the development application was lawful and rational. The court held that the council had appropriately exercised its discretion under the planning legislation and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The reasons provided by the council for revoking the approval were deemed sufficient and appropriate, aligning with the statutory requirements and relevant planning policies. The court also concluded that there was no procedural unfairness in the manner in which the decision was made. Consequently, the decision of the council to deny the development application was upheld.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of The City of Canterbury Bankstown to deny the development application be upheld. The plaintiff's appeal was rejected, and the council's decision to revoke the approval was affirmed as lawful and rational. The court found no basis to interfere with the council's decision, thereby concluding the legal dispute in favour of the council.

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.