Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Tribeca Property Developers Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1344 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 July 2018 Date of orders: 06 July 2018 Decision date: 06 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [4] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tribeca Property Developers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
B Hayward, Mills Oakley Lawyers (Applicant)
G Garrett, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/385110 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 rely on the amended plans and documents as filed with the Court on 6 July 2018 and as referred to in condition 1 of the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
The parties agree that the amendments made to the plans are not minor for the purposes of section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Act in the sum of $6000.00 within 21 days of the date of this agreement.
The written request made, pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, to vary the minimum lot size standard set out in “Annexure 2” of the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Rod Logan Planning, dated 17 October 2017 is upheld.
The written request made, pursuant to clause 4.6 of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012, to vary the maximum building height standard set out in “Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards” prepared by Rod Logan Planning (undated) is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development application no. DA2017/0496 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building comprising of fourteen (14) units with partially below ground basement car parking at 35-37 Empress Street, Hurstville, is approved subject to the conditions contained at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (472 KB, pdf)
Amended Plans and Documents (10.4 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Tribeca Property Developers Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1344
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1344
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue before the court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was legally sound. Specifically, Tribeca argued that the Council had failed to properly consider the public benefits of the proposed development and had incorrectly applied the relevant planning policy and environmental guidelines. Additionally, Tribeca claimed that the Council had not given proper weight to the statutory requirements concerning the approval of multi-residential developments.
In its judgment, the court considered the statutory framework and relevant planning policies that governed the decision-making process. The court found that the Council had adequately considered the statutory requirements and had not erred in its assessment of the public benefits or the application of the planning policies. The court also determined that the Council's reasons for refusal were rational and based on sufficient evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed Tribeca's application for judicial review. The court found that the Council's decision was reasonable and that Tribeca had not established that the Council had acted unlawfully or irrationally in refusing the development 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.