Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Urban Link Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1317 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 May 2018; 8, 22 June 2018 Date of orders: 27 June 2018 Decision date: 27 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Urban Link Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Georges River Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
J Ware, Georges River Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/351493 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Urban Link Pty Ltd against the refusal by Georges River Council of DA 8/2017 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a four-storey residential flat building with 13 Units and basement parking at 849 King Georges Road, South Hurstville (Lot 17 DP/ 262438).
-
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 the development application to rely upon the following plans:
Reference No.
Date
Description
Revision
Prepared by
DA01
4 Jun 18
Coverpage
E
Urbanlink
DA02
8 Jun 18
Site Plan
E
Urbanlink
DA03
4 Jun 18
Site Analysis
E
Urbanlink
DA04
4 Jun 18
Basement
E
Urbanlink
DA05
4 Jun 18
Ground Level
E
Urbanlink
DA06
4 Jun 18
Levels 1-2 & 3
E
Urbanlink
DA07
4 Jun 18
Sections
E
Urbanlink
DA08
4 Jun 18
North & East Elevations
E
Urbanlink
DA09
4 Jun 18
South & West Elevations
E
Urbanlink
DA10
4 Jun 18
GFA/FSR Calculations
E
Urbanlink
DA11
4 Jun 18
Shadow Studies (June 21st)
E
Urbanlink
DA12
4 Jun 18
Shadow Studies (Sep 22nd)
E
Urbanlink
DA13
4 Jun 18
Solar Studies
E
Urbanlink
DA14
4 Jun 18
Finishes Schedule
E
Urbanlink
DA15
4 Jun 18
Perspectives Drawing
E
Urbanlink
LA-01
28 May 18
Landscape plan ground floor
C
Susan Stratton
LA-02
28 May 18
Landscape plan – level 3
B
Susan Stratton
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as a result of amending the development application in accordance with Order (1) in the sum of $12,000.00 within 28 days.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 8/2017 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a four-storey residential flat building with 13 Units and basement parking situated at 849 King Georges Road, South Hurstville is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (489 KB, pdf)
Plans (18.3 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Urban Link Pty Ltd v Georges River Council [2018] NSWLEC 1317
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council’s decision was lawful and whether the reasons provided for the refusal were adequate and sufficient. Urban Link argued that the Council had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria for approval and had acted outside the bounds of its authority. Conversely, the Council asserted that it had exercised its discretion correctly and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which were both legally sound and in accordance with the relevant planning instruments.
The court examined the decision-making process undertaken by the Council and the reasons provided for its refusal. It was held that the Council had indeed considered the statutory criteria but had misapplied the weight to be given to certain factors. The court found that the reasons provided were not comprehensive enough to demonstrate the full extent of the Council’s reasoning. Consequently, the court ruled that the decision was unreasonable and quashed the Council’s refusal. The matter was remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [5] 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.