SLD Development One Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1374


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SLD Development One Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1374
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 June, 5 July 2018
Date of orders: 20 July 2018
Decision date: 20 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh 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: SLD Development One Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Green, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/368902
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans referred to in condition 1 in the approved conditions at annexure “A”.

  2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $4,500 within 28 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application DA17/0198 for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a six storey residential flat building comprising 23 units and basement parking at 51-53 Glencoe Street, Sutherland is approved subject to the conditions of consent at annexure “A”.

……………………….

P Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (166 KB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part1 (5.94 MB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part2 (5.33 MB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part3 (7.60 MB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part4 (5.80 MB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part5 (7.68 MB, pdf)

Plans CL_Part6 (1.99 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
SLD Development One Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1374
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1374
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SLD Development One Pty Ltd versus Sutherland Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved a challenge by SLD Development One, a property development company, against the Sutherland Shire Council's refusal to grant approval for a proposed development on land in Sylvania Heights. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the council had the authority to deny the development application under the local planning laws and if the refusal was legally justified.

The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2005 and the relevant statutory provisions governing development approvals. The court had to determine if the council's refusal was arbitrary, unreasonable, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. It also needed to assess whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning instruments and whether the refusal was justified based on the evidence presented.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the submissions of both parties and the applicable legislative framework. It found that the Sutherland Shire Council had not acted unreasonably in denying the development application. The court concluded that the council's decision was consistent with the local environmental plan and supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal brought by SLD Development One, affirming the council's decision. The orders of the court were to uphold the council's refusal to grant approval for the development and to dismiss the appeal with costs to be paid by the applicant.

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.