Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd v Camden Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1155


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2017] NSWLEC 1155
Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 7 and 28 February 2017, 24 March 2017
Date of orders: 27 March 2017
Decision date: 27 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd (Applicant)
CAMDEN COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
J Reid (Applicant)
D Loether (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors
Meehans Solicitors Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/313209
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. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 1362/2015 and to rely upon the following amended plans:

Plan Reference/ Drawing No.

Name of Plan

Prepared by

Date

Project: 7395

Demolition Plan

Abode Drafting

9/5/2016

Project: 7395, Sheet 01, Issue: E

Basement Floor Plan

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 02, Issue: E

Ground Floor Plan

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 03, Issue: E

First Floor Plan

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 04, Issue: E

Roof Plan

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 05, Issue: E

Sections

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 06, Issue: E

Eastern and Western Elevations

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 07, Issue: E

Northern and Southern Elevations

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

Project: 7395, Sheet 08, Issue: E

Streetscape Elevation

Abode Drafting

6/3/2017

68-13.00

Coversheet

Distinctive Living Design

7/3/2017

68-13.01

Palette, Notes & Details

Distinctive Living Design

7/3/2017

68-13.10

Landscape Hardscape Plan

Distinctive Living Design

7/3/2017

68-13.11

Landscape Softscape Plan

Distinctive Living Design

7/3/2017

92-14

Coversheet

Distinctive Living Design

9/3/2017

92-14.01

Materials, Legends & Notes

Distinctive Living Design

9/3/2017

92-14.02

Elevations Western & Eastern

Distinctive Living Design

9/3/2017

92-14.03

Elevations Northern & Southern

Distinctive Living Design

9/3/2017

Project 7395

Sheet 1

Strata Plan

Abode Drafting

9/3/2017

Project 7395

Sheet 2

Strata Plan

Abode Drafting

9/3/2017

Project 7395

Sheet 3

Strata Plan

Abode Drafting

9/3/2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as agreed or assessed.

  2. Development Application No. 1362/2015 (as amended) for the proposed demolition of two existing dwellings, swimming pool and tree removal, and for the construction of a part 2 storey and part 3 storey residential flat building containing 11 apartments ( 6 x 2 bedrooms and 5 x 3 bedrooms) and lot consolidation on Lots 5, 6 and 7 in DP 28457 and Lot 41A in DP 29251 known as 26, 28 and 30 Old Hume Highway, Camden, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.

…………….

Rosemary Martin

Senior Commissioner

313209.16 (C) (111 KB, pdf)

Amendments

27 March 2017 - Words missing at Order 4 added: "Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:"

Details
AGLC
Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd v Camden Council [2017] NSWLEC 1155
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thunderace Holdings Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by Camden Council regarding a planning application. The application was for the development of a shopping centre, and the council had rejected it. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the validity of the council's decisions. The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the council's decisions were lawful, rational, and based on appropriate consideration of the relevant planning laws and statutory guidelines. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was any procedural unfairness or bias in the council's decision-making process.

The court began by examining the statutory framework and the planning principles that applied to the case. It reviewed the council's assessment of the application against the criteria outlined in the relevant planning instruments. The court also evaluated whether the council had adequately considered all material factors and whether it had acted within its powers. Furthermore, the court scrutinised the procedural fairness of the council's actions, including whether the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to present its case and respond to the council's concerns. After thorough analysis, the court found that the council's decisions were indeed lawful and rational, and there was no procedural unfairness or bias. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court concluded that Camden Council's decisions were well-founded and compliant with the statutory requirements. The applicant's arguments regarding the alleged procedural defects and the merits of the planning application were not persuasive. The council had properly exercised its discretion and followed the relevant laws and guidelines in reaching its determinations. As a result, the court upheld the council's decisions, and the application for judicial review was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of 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.