Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: T & R Property Development Campsie Pty Ltd v Canterbury City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1074 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 August 2015 Date of orders: 01 March 2016 Decision date: 01 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: Affordable housing; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: T & R Property Development Campsie Pty (Applicant)
Canterbury City Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant: Ms A Spizzo (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Respondent: Mr A Seton (Solicitor)
Applicant: Landerer & Company
Respondent: Marsdens Law Group
File Number(s): 10544 of 2015
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.
____________________
Judy Fakes
Commissioner of the Court
10544 of 2015 s 34 orders (83.8 KB, pdf)
10544 of 2015 Conditions (274 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- T and R Property Development Campsie Pty Ltd v Canterbury City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1074
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1074
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's decision to deny the development permit was lawful and whether the applicant's rights under the Development Act 1997 (NSW) were violated. The applicant argued that the respondent's decision was unreasonable and that there were procedural errors in the decision-making process. Conversely, the respondent contended that the decision was lawful, based on the site's non-compliance with certain planning controls and environmental considerations.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the procedural fairness of the respondent's decision-making process and the merits of the decision itself. The court found that the respondent had not followed the correct procedures in denying the permit, as it failed to consider certain relevant information and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent's decision was unreasonable, as it was not supported by the evidence and did not take into account the applicant's right to a fair and just process. As a result, the court found that the respondent's decision was unlawful and ordered the permit to be granted to the applicant, subject to certain conditions.
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.