Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Yapp Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1415 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 28 June 2018; 10 July 2018 Date of orders: 07 August 2018 Decision date: 07 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
Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yapp Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
S Kondilios, Hall & Wilcox (Applicant)
M Bonanno, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/377838 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 appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. D/2017/547 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents, copies of which are behind Annexure “A”:
Plan Reference
Drawn By
Dated
DA0000 Rev 07
DA0100 Rev 06
DA0101 Rev 06
DA0102 Rev 07
DA1000 Rev 07
DA1001 Rev 06
DA1100 Rev 07
DA1101 Rev 07
DA2000 Rev 06
DA2001 Rev 06
DA2100 Rev 07
DA2101 Rev 07
DA3000 Rev 07
DA3001 Rev 06
DA3101 Rev 07
DA9000 Rev 06
DA9100 Rev 06
DA9101 Rev 06
DA9102 Rev 06
DA9103 Rev 04
DA9104 Rev 04
DA9105 Rev 04
DA9200 Rev 04
H&E Architects
28.06.2018
Document Title
Prepared By
Dated
BASIX Certificate No.A287455
Humphrey & Edwards
11.10.2017
Landscape Plans - DA 01/E dated 29.06.2018, DA 02/D dated 16.05.2018, DA 03/E dated 29.06.2018, DA 04/E dated 28.06.2018, DA 05/A dated 16.05.2018
Emily Simpson landscape architecture
Stormwater Design
HDA01 / P2
HDA02 / P2
HDA03 / P2
HDA04 / P2
HDA05 / P2
HDA06 / P2
Liquid Hydraulics
15.05.2018
The Applicant’s clause 4.6 request, prepared by Daintry Associates Pty Ltd and dated 8 June 2018 as set out in the Statement of Environmental Effect, for variation of the Site Cover development standard under the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.
The Applicant’s clause 4.6 request, prepared by Daintry Associates Pty Ltd and dated 8 June 2018 as set out in the Statement of Environmental Effect, for variation of the Landscape Area development standard under the Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013, a copy of which is behind Annexure “B”, is upheld.
Development Application No. D/2017/547 for ground and first floor alterations and additions to existing residence, and associated works, including new garage at rear, landscaping and tree removal, at 368 Annandale Street, Annandale, be approved subject to the conditions which are behind Annexure “C”.
……………………….
Susan O’Neill
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (18.4 MB, pdf) Annexure B (3.80 MB, pdf) Annexure C (90.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Yapp Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1415
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1415
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court was required to address were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether the applicant had established any grounds for judicial review. Specifically, the court had to determine if the decision was made in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and if the council's consideration of the application was procedurally fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the court had to assess if the applicant had demonstrated that the decision was affected by an error of law or if it was otherwise invalid.
The court found that the council's decision was lawful and that there were no grounds for judicial review. The applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was made in error or was otherwise invalid. The court held that the council had properly considered the relevant planning legislation, the site's environmental impact, and the community's interests. The applicant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness and the alleged error of law were not substantiated. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.
ORDERS:
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.
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.