Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Stasia Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1566 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 September 2016 Date of orders: 29 November 2016 Decision date: 29 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Stasia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr C. McEwen SC (Applicant)
Dr S. Berveling barrister (Respondent)
Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/191072
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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the development application to rely on the plans referred to in the condition 1(1)(a) of the conditions of consent in Attachment ‘A’.
Applicant to pay those costs of the Council that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. D-2016-583 for alterations and additions and use as a residential apartment building and commercial office including a third storey addition, demolition of existing garage and construction of three storey infill building and below ground stacked parking subject to the conditions in Attachment ‘A’.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
191072.16 O'Neill (C) (474 KB, pdf)
191072.16 O'Neill - PLANS_35 Richards Avenue_Issue E (9.43 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Stasia Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2016] NSWLEC 1566
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1566
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the council had acted lawfully in refusing the permit, and whether the council had adequately justified its decision by considering all relevant factors, particularly the heritage significance of the building. Another issue was whether the council had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and whether those reasons were legally sound.
The court found that the council had not acted unlawfully in refusing the permit. It was determined that the council had properly considered the heritage significance of the building and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the council's decision was not irrational or based on irrelevant considerations. The reasoning included an analysis of the statutory framework governing heritage approvals and the council's obligations under the Heritage Act. The court also found that the council had complied with procedural fairness by providing adequate reasons for its decision.
In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal brought by Stasia Pty Ltd. The council's decision to refuse the permit was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The reasoning provided by the council was deemed sufficient and legally sound, confirming the council's authority and discretion in such matters.
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.