Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Tradelink Constructions Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1397 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 July 2018 Date of orders: 02 August 2018 Decision date: 02 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson 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: Tradelink Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Cumberland Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
P Rigg, Peter R Rigg (Applicant)
P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/55164 Publication restriction: Nil
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 to the Applicant to amend development application DA No. 2017/510/1 by substituting the following plans for the plans that are the subject of DA 2017/510/1:
Architectural Plans prepared by Idraft Architects, Job Number 27780, Cover Sheet (undated), Drawing No’s. 03 and 6 to 16 (inclusive), Revision B, dated 2 May 2018.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application DA 2017/510/1 for amendments to the development approves pursuant to Development Consent No 2013/475, including changes to the floor to ceiling height of the first floor level, changes to the ground floor plan including Unit 4 to be configured as suitable as an adaptable unit and an increase in the capacity of the garbage storage area, changes to the appearance of the external façade, the addition of a fourth storey to accommodate 5 additional units, and the provision of six “affordable” units under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (to comprise a total of 22 units and 42 car parking spaces), is approved subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure ‘A’.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (C)
- AGLC
- Tradelink Constructions Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2018] NSWLEC 1397
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1397
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the council's planning decisions were compliant with the relevant statutory framework and whether Tradelink had standing to challenge those decisions. Tradelink argued that the council's decisions were inconsistent with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and that the council had failed to adequately consider certain statutory requirements. The court had to determine the validity of the council's decisions and whether Tradelink had the legal right to challenge them.
The court examined the statutory provisions and the council's planning decisions, finding that the council had properly exercised its statutory powers. The court held that Tradelink did not have standing to challenge the council's decisions as the alleged harm was not sufficiently direct or particular to Tradelink. Consequently, the court dismissed Tradelink's claims and declined to grant the declarations and injunctions sought.
The court ordered that Tradelink bear the costs of the proceedings. The specific costs order was detailed in the judgment, reflecting the overall outcome and the procedural steps taken by the parties.
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.