18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1196


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: 18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1196
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 April 2017
Date of orders: 21 April 2017
Decision date: 21 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of application for 25 two storey dwellings and associated infrastructure: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: 18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A McKelvey, Sparke Helmore Solicitors (Applicant)
J Marshall, Newcastle City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00385945
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the refusal of Development Application No.2015/0540 which sought consent for twenty five two storey dwellings, strata subdivision, tree removal and associated site works at 18 Nerigai Close, Elermore Vale.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application rely upon the plans set out in Condition 1 in Annexure A;

  2. The appeal is upheld; and

  3. DA/2015/0540 for two storey residential dwellings, strata subdivision, tree removal and associated site works at 18 Nerigai Close, Elermore Vale, is approved subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure A.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

385945.16 Annexure A (C) (274 KB, pdf)

385945.16 Plans Part 1 (14.7 MB, pdf)

385945.16 Plans Part 2 (14.8 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1196
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, 18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against the Newcastle City Council. The dispute arose from the Council's refusal to issue a development approval for a property located at 18 Nerigai Place, Bolton Point. The developer, 18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd, sought to build a residential unit within the approved site, but the Council's planning department declined to grant the necessary approval, citing concerns about the development's impact on the local environment and heritage values.

The primary legal issues that the Court had to resolve included whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with relevant planning laws and policies. Specifically, the Court needed to examine whether the Council's refusal was based on proper consideration of the statutory and policy framework governing development approvals and whether the decision-making process adhered to procedural fairness.

The Court found that the Council's decision was not based on proper consideration of the statutory and policy framework. The Court held that the Council failed to adequately address the environmental and heritage impact assessments, which were critical to the decision-making process. The Court also found that the decision-making process was not procedurally fair, as the developer was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Council's concerns. Consequently, the Court set aside the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's directions.

In light of the Court's findings, the orders included a declaration that the Council's decision to refuse development approval was invalid, and the matter was to be reconsidered by the Council with proper regard to the statutory and policy framework. The Court also directed that the developer be provided with an opportunity to make further submissions and address the Council's concerns. The Court emphasised the importance of adherence to legal and procedural requirements in development approvals to ensure fair and lawful decision-making.

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.