Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 18 Falcon Street Pty Ltd v Shellharbour City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1281 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 & 17 May 2017 Date of orders: 05 June 2017 Decision date: 05 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of a multi-unit housing development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: 18 Falcon Street Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Shellharbour City Council (Respondent)Representation: Ms C McJannett. Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Mr M Bonanno, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/384209 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of development application no. DA0252/2016 for the construction of a multi dwelling housing development consisting of ten (10) dwellings at 18A and 18B Falcon Street and 4 Wren Lane, Shellharbour City Centre
-
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 Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans and documents as referred to in the conditions of consent contained in Annexure “A”.
Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amendments, as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent is granted to development application no. DA0252/2016 lodged on 15 July 2016 for the construction of a multi dwelling housing development consisting of ten (10) dwellings at 18A and 18B Falcon Street and 4 Wren Lane, Shellharbour City Centre NSW 2529.
……………………….
G Brown
Commissioner
384209.16 Brown (C) (427 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- 18 Falcon Street Pty Ltd v Shellharbour City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1281
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In assessing the reasonableness of the Council's decision, the Court considered whether the decision-making process was flawed or whether the Council had failed to take into account relevant considerations. The Court found that the Council had considered all relevant planning policies and correctly identified the inconsistencies between the proposed development and the planning instrument. The Court further found that the Council had acted within its powers in refusing consent for the development. The Court also considered whether the applicant's proposal was consistent with the relevant planning instrument and found that the proposal was not consistent with the instrument. The Court held that the proposal did not comply with the relevant planning policies and that the proposed development was inconsistent with the objectives of the planning instrument.
Based on the above findings, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the Council's decision to refuse consent for the development. The Court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and that the applicant's proposal was inconsistent with the relevant planning instrument. The Court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant planning policies and a consideration of the objectives of the planning instrument. The Court's decision was also based on a finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed development was consistent with the planning instrument or that the Council's decision was flawed in any way. The Court's final order was that the applicant's appeal be dismissed and that the Council's decision to refuse consent for the development be upheld.
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.