Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1418


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1418
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 August 2018
Date of orders: 09 August 2018
Decision date: 09 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
S Griffiths, Bartier Perry (Applicant)
S Turner, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/48317
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/558 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:

Plan Reference

Drawn By

Dated

DA-A00 – Cover Sheet and Context Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-A01 – Street Elevation and Line of Sight Analysis, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-A002 – Site Analysis Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-A03 – Site Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-A04 – Existing Lower Ground Floor Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-A05 – Existing Ground Floor Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-D01 – Lower Ground Floor Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-D02 – Ground Floor Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-D03 – First Floor Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-D04 – Roof Plan, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-E01 – Elevations North – Existing and Proposed, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-E02 – Elevations South, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-E03 – Elevations East, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-E04 – Elevations Rendered Sheet 01, Revision B

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-E05 – Elevations Rendered Sheet 02, Revision B

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-F01 – Sections A + B, Revision D

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-M01 – Materials and Finishes, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-P01 – Car Parking and Vehicle Crossing, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-P02 – Car Parking and Vehicle Crossing, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-S01 – Shadow Diagram 9AM, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-S02 – Shadow Diagram 12PM, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

DA-S03 – Shadow Diagram 3PM, Revision C

Andrew Burges Architects

2 August 2018

  1. Development Application No. D/2017/558 (as amended) for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including construction of additional storeys within the footprint of the existing rear extension, demolition of the garage and constructions of a new carport and driveway crossing at the rear on Lot 1, Section D in Deposited Plan 179 (otherwise known as 52 Llewellyn Street, Balmain), be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “B”.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (5.62 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (382 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1418
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1418
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd v Inner West Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute involved the interpretation of zoning laws and the application of a specific planning permit. Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to challenge the decision of Inner West Council, the respondent, which denied their application for a planning permit to construct a supermarket on a particular piece of land. The case revolved around whether the council's decision was legally sound and if the applicant's rights under the planning laws were properly considered.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Inner West Council had correctly applied the relevant planning and zoning laws in denying the permit and whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient case for the permit to be granted. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable and if the applicant's proposal complied with the planning scheme and any relevant policies. Additionally, the court examined the extent to which the applicant's rights to develop the land were protected under the planning laws.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the statutory provisions and planning policies applicable to the site. The court found that the council had correctly applied the relevant laws and policies in denying the permit. The decision was deemed reasonable, as it was based on a comprehensive assessment of the planning scheme and the impact of the proposed development on the local community. The court concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development was in accordance with the planning laws, nor had they shown that the council's decision was unreasonable. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Wilk Super No.1 Pty Ltd's appeal against the decision of the Inner West Council was dismissed. The court upheld the council's decision to deny the planning permit, finding it to be lawful and based on a proper application of the planning laws. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.