Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: TQUE Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1551 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 April 2017 Date of orders: 29 September 2017 Decision date: 29 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott 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: TQUE Pty Limited (Applicant)
Council of the City of Sydney (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr K Morrin, Sydney City Council(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/384244 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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the amended plans as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
Pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (SLEP 2012), the Applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that, based on the amended plans:
compliance with clause 4.4 Floor Space Ration of SLEP 2012 would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances;
there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard; and
the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of clause 4.4 of SLEP 2012 and the objectives for development within the B4 – Mixed Use Zone.
In accordance with section 97B of the Act, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent is granted to Development application No. D/2016/1218 for alterations and additions to the existing building creating an additional nine (9) hotel rooms and alterations to the ground floor with the creation of a bar-restaurant space on the southern side of the ground floor, known as Lots 13, 14 and 15 in Deposited Plan 81 at 304-308 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
Annexure A (5.89 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- TQUE Pty Limited v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1551
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1551
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers, followed proper procedures, and made its decision based on relevant considerations. The applicant argued that the council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and had not properly considered the evidence presented. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on substantial evidence and was in the public interest.
The court found that the council's decision was not supported by the evidence and was not made in accordance with the applicable legislation. The court held that the council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and had not properly considered the evidence presented. The court also found that the council had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as it had not provided the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. The court concluded that the council's decision was unlawful and quashed it. The matter was remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
The court ordered that the council's decision be quashed and the matter be remitted for reconsideration. The court also directed that the council provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to any concerns raised and to make its decision based on relevant considerations. The court further directed that the council provide reasons for its decision and ensure that it is in accordance with the applicable legislation and principles of natural justice.
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.