Thirdi Union Street Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1519


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Thirdi Union Street Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1519
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 September 2018; 3 October 2018
Date of orders: 03 October 2018
Decision date: 03 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris AC
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: Thirdi Union Street Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Newcastle City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Pearman (Respondent)

Solicitors:
A McKelvey (Applicant)
Newcastle City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/154253
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 appeal is upheld;

  2. Development Application No. DA2017/01532 for the demolition of structures and erection of a mixed use development (including a 13-storey building and a 14-storey building) consisting of 112 residential units, two retail / commercial units and associated car parking on land described as Lot 37 DP 1083688, Lot 12 DP 1085732, Lot 1 DP 805529, Lot 1 DP 9998987 and Lot 8 DP 864170 is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure A.

……………………….

S Morris

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (136 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Thirdi Union Street Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1519
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1519
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thirdi Union Street Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Newcastle City Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, seeking to challenge the council’s decision to refuse the development application for a mixed-use residential and commercial building. The applicant argued that the council’s decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the applicable planning instruments. The council defended its decision, asserting that it was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development.

The court was required to determine whether the council’s decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and whether it complied with the relevant planning laws. This involved examining the evidence presented by both parties, assessing the application against the planning policies and environmental considerations, and evaluating the reasons provided by the council for its decision.

The court found that the council’s decision was not unreasonable and was in accordance with the applicable planning laws. The council had properly considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the council’s decision was based on a proper application of the planning policies and was not flawed by any jurisdictional error. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the council’s decision.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the council’s costs of the proceedings, which were assessed at $45,000. The court also ordered that the applicant bear its own costs in relation to the appeal, which were not specified in the judgment.

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.