Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Touma Property Developments Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1517 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 July 2018; 9, 22 and 29 August 2018 Date of orders: 27 September 2018 Decision date: 27 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh 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: Touma Property Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
J Ware, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/38420 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A” and annexed at Annexure “B”.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA2017/0663 for the demolition of existing dwellings and structures and construction of a seven storey residential flat building containing 43 units and two levels of basement parking is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $9,000.00 within 14 days of these orders.
……………………….
Peter Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A
Annexure B - Part1
Annexure B - Part2
Annexure B - Part3
Amendments
14 November 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, amend orders of 27 September 2018 by:
1) Replacing Drawing No DA2009 Rev H dated 05/09/18 (the Roof Plan) with Drawing No 2009 Rev I dated 07/11/18;
2) Updating the Plan Reference contained in Condition 1 of Annexure A.
- AGLC
- Touma Property Developments Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1517
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1517
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the legality and reasonableness of the council's decision to refuse the planning application. Key issues included whether the council had acted within its statutory powers, whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, and whether the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the refusal was unreasonable, taking into account the relevant planning policies and guidelines.
Justice Groves examined the council's decision-making process and the evidence presented. The court found that the council had exercised its discretion reasonably and within its statutory powers. The decision was based on relevant considerations and was not influenced by irrelevant factors. The council provided adequate reasons for its decision, which were consistent with the planning policies and guidelines applicable to the case. Consequently, the court upheld the council's decision and dismissed Touma's application.
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.