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 1979Category: 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
-
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.
-
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, 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 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application rely upon the plans set out in Condition 1 in Annexure A;
The appeal is upheld; and
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)
- AGLC
- 18 Nerigai Place Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1196
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1196
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.