Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: The Partnership of CS Property Holdings Pty Ltd & Quartec Group Trust v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1134 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 February 2017 Date of orders: 16 March 2017 Decision date: 16 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: The Partnership of CS Property Holdings Pty Ltd & Quartec Group Trust (Applicant)
Strathfield Municipal Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr C Drury, Sparke Helmore(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/341622 Publication restriction: No
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 make, 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans dated March 2015 and numbered S96-01, S96-02, S96-08 and S96-09 and attached hereto at Annexure “A”.
The appeal in respect of the property known as 432-434 Liverpool Road, Strathfield, is upheld.
Modification application No. 2014/045/06 for the alterations to three ground floor units within an approved and constructed residential flat building to install partition walls to create separate commercial tenancies and for the provision of an additional entry door to unit SOHO 1 and SOHO 2 from level 2 is determined by approval of the amended plans attached hereto at Annexure “A”.
As a consequence of order 2(c) and the modifications to the Development Consent No. DA2014/042 approved by the Court in proceedings 2016/341622, Development Consent No. DA2014/042 is now subject to the modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”.
The Court notes the parties agree that the amendments are minor for the purpose of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and that no costs order should be made.
……………………….
Commissioner Morris
341622.16 Morris (C) - Annexure A (875 KB, pdf)
341622.16 Morris (C) - Annexure B (216 KB, pdf)
Amendments
16 March 2017 - Corrected numbering in Orders
- AGLC
- The Partnership of CS Property Holdings Pty Ltd and Quartec Group Trust v Strathfield Municipal Council [2017] NSWLEC 1134
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether it had acted within its statutory powers. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Council's assessment of the application was based on proper consideration of all relevant factors and whether the decision was in accordance with the law. The Partnership also challenged the procedural fairness of the Council's decision-making process, arguing that there were procedural errors and that the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.
The Court found that the Council's refusal was indeed unreasonable and in breach of the Partnership's legal rights. The decision was not based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors, and the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Court held that the Council had acted outside its statutory powers and had not followed the correct legal process in reaching its decision. The Partnership's arguments regarding procedural fairness were also upheld, with the Court finding that the Council had indeed made procedural errors in the decision-making process.
The Court ordered that the Council's decision to refuse the development application be set aside and that the application be remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Court also ordered that the Council provide detailed reasons for its decision and ensure that the process for reconsideration was fair and transparent. The Partnership was awarded costs associated with the proceedings.
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.