Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1632 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on Date of orders: 09 November 2017 Decision date: 09 November 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: Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd (Applicant)
City of Sydney Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr R Wilcher, Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr Simpson, Sydney City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/215154 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:
The appeal be upheld;
Development consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/1734 for demolition of existing warehouse building within the site and construction of a new four storey commercial building and two multi storey car stackers at Lots 1 DP 89681 known as 23-25 Doody Street, Alexandria NSW 2015 on conditions set out in Annexure A;
Leave be granted to rely on the amended plans listed condition 1(a) of Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Chilcott
215154.17 Chilcott - Annexure A (433 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Twenty Three Doody Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2017] NSWLEC 1632
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1632
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing the plaintiff’s application. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council had given proper consideration to the statutory criteria outlined in the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). This included considering the public interest, local amenity, and whether the applicant had complied with relevant conditions and regulations.
The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider one of the statutory criteria, namely the impact on local amenity. The council had not sufficiently considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the measures that would be implemented to mitigate any adverse effects on the local community. The court held that the council's decision was therefore flawed and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the council was to reconsider the application, taking into account all relevant statutory criteria, including the impact on local amenity, and make a fresh decision. The court further directed that the plaintiff was to be given an opportunity to make further submissions on the issue of local amenity.
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.