Sydney Redevelopments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1065

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sydney Redevelopments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1065
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson 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: Sydney Redevelopments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Matt Sonter, Mills Oakley Solicitors (Applicant)
Alex Singh, Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/282833
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. Development Application D/2017/920 for a staged concept application comprising a stage 1 concept approval of a 34 storey building envelope with 1 future stage of development for the detailed design of the basement, podium and tower as one development is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and plans at Annexure “B”.

  3. The amount of costs payable by the Applicant to the Respondent pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as Ordered by the Court on 24 January, 2018 in the sum of $8,000.00 is payable by 16 March, 2018.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (286 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.55 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sydney Redevelopments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1065
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1065
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between Sydney Redevelopments Pty Ltd, the appellant, and the Council of the City of Sydney, the respondent. The dispute arose from the respondent's refusal to grant the appellant's application for a development approval for a site located in Sydney. The appellant sought to construct a commercial building on the site, which was subject to local planning controls and the City of Sydney Planning Scheme. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over planning and environmental matters in the state.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's decision to refuse the appellant's application was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning controls and legislative requirements. The appellant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and that the respondent had failed to properly consider the merits of the proposal. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the refusal was justified based on the site's zoning and other relevant planning considerations. The court was required to determine whether the decision-making process followed proper legal principles and whether the decision itself was based on relevant and sufficient considerations.

In its judgment, the court found that the respondent's decision to refuse the appellant's application was not unlawful or irrational. The court held that the respondent had properly considered the relevant planning controls and had provided adequate reasons for the refusal. The court also found that the respondent's decision was based on relevant and sufficient considerations, including the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area and the need to preserve the character of the locality. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the refusal was unreasonable, finding that the respondent had exercised its discretion in accordance with the law.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant planning controls and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the respondent's decision-making process was thorough and that the reasons provided for the refusal were adequate and consistent with the relevant legislation and planning controls. The court also found that the respondent had properly considered the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area and had given due weight to the need to preserve the character of the locality. The court held that the respondent's decision was not unreasonable and that the appellant's application for development approval should be refused. The court's decision was final and binding, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.

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.