XZ International Holding Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1469


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: XZ International Holding Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1469
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 July and 11 August 2017
Date of orders: 29 August 2017
Decision date: 29 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: XZ International Holding Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council(Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R O’Gorman-Hughes (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr A Whealy, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/60148
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to substitute the following plans for the plans and documents that are the subject of Development Application No. DA-304/2016:

Plan No.

Plan Name

Revision No.

Drawn by

Dated

DA 000

Cover sheet

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 002

Site Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 100

Basement Level 02 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 101

Basement Level 01 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 102

Ground Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 103

Level 01 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 104

Level 02 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 105

Level 03 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 106

Level 04 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 107

Level 05 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 108

Level 06 Floor Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 109

Roof Terrace Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 110

Roof Level Plan

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 200

North Elevation

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 201

East Elevation

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 202

West Elevation

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 203

Inner Elevations

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 300

Section A

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 500

Pre + Post Adaptable unit layout

B

CDA Architects

27/04/2017

DA 600

Shadow Diagrams

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 700

GFA Calculation

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 701

Solar Access Plan

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 702

Ventilation Diagrams

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 706

3D Views

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 730

Finishes Schedule

C

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 740

Sun View 9AM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 740-1

Sun View 9:30AM

A

CDA Architects

27/04/2017

DA 741

Sun View 10AM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 741-1

Sun View 10:30AM

A

CDA Architects

27/04/2017

DA 742

Sun View 11AM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 742-1

Sun View 11:30AM

A

CDA Architects

27/04/2017

DA 743

Sun View 12PM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 744

Sun View 1PM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 745

Sun View 2PM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 746

Sun View 3PM

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 747

Solar Schedule

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 750

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 1

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 751

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 2

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 752

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 3

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 753

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 4

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 754

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 5

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 755

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 6

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 756

Neighbour Solar Access Study – Sheet 7

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 760

LEP Building Height Diagram – Sheet 1

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

DA 761

LEP Building Height Diagram – Sheet 2

B

CDA Architects

27/07/2017

1390.GD.01

Landscape Plan – Ground Floor

B

Greenland Design Architects

28/06/2017

1390.GD.02

Landscape Plan – Roof Terrace

B

Greenland Design Architects

28/06/2017

1390.GD.03

Landscape Details and Specification

B

Greenland Design Architects

28/06/2017

D00

Cover Sheet, Legend & Drawing Schedule

B

Australian Consulting Engineers

23/06/2017

D01

Basement 2 Stormwater Drainage Plan

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

23/06/2017

D02

Basement 1 Stormwater Drainage Plan

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

23/06/2017

D03

Ground Floor Stormwater Drainage Plan

C

Australian Consulting Engineers

22/06/2017

D03.5

Roof Stormwater Drainage Plan

A

Australian Consulting Engineers

23/06/2017

Document Name

Prepared by

Dated

Clause 4.6 Request

Urban Plan

10 August 2017

BASIX Certificate No. 736379M_03

Outsource Ideas P/l

2 August 2017

Stormwater Design Certificate

Australian Consulting Engineers

23 June 2017

  1. In accordance with section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application No. DA-304/2016 for the construction of a 7 storey shop top housing development, containing 5 commercial units on the ground floor and 32 residential units (2 x 1 bedroom and 30 x 2 bedroom) above 2 basement levels containing 58 car parking spaces on Lots 7 and 8 DP 560608 known as 6-6A Charles Street, Canterbury is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

……………………………………

Commissioner Jenny Smithson

60148.17 Smithson - Annexure A (C) (390 KB, pdf)

60148.17 Smithson - Plans (13.7 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
XZ International Holding Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2017] NSWLEC 1469
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1469
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved XZ International Holding Pty Ltd, the applicant, and Canterbury-Bankstown Council, the respondent. The applicant sought to overturn a decision by the respondent regarding a development application. The dispute centred on whether the council had exercised its discretion correctly in denying the development application for a proposed hotel and residential complex. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over matters related to land use and environmental planning.

The primary legal issue was whether the council had acted lawfully in its decision to refuse the development application. The applicant argued that the council had failed to consider relevant statutory criteria and had acted irrationally in its assessment of the application. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision was lawful, well-reasoned, and based on a comprehensive evaluation of the relevant factors.

The court examined the statutory framework governing development applications and the principles of administrative law that guide the exercise of discretionary powers. It was necessary to determine whether the council had adhered to the statutory criteria and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider one of the statutory criteria, which was a significant factor in the decision-making process. Additionally, the reasons provided by the council were insufficient to demonstrate a proper exercise of discretion. Consequently, the court held that the decision was unlawful.

As a result of the court's findings, the decision of the council to refuse the development application was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The council was directed to consider the application afresh, taking into account all relevant statutory criteria and providing comprehensive reasons for its decision.

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.