Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: AESK Investments Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1754 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 November, 18 & 20 December 2017 Date of orders: 21 December 2017 Decision date: 21 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AESK Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr C McFadzean, SWAAB Attorneys (Applicant)
Ms O Yeatman, RMB Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/212204 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The appeal is upheld;
Development consent is granted to DA No. 10.2017.259.1 for demolition of structures and the subdivision of 2 lots into 30 lots at 78-80 River Road, Tahmoor be approved subject to the conditions in Annexure "A" inclusive of general terms of approval from Subsidence Advisory NSW at Annexure "B".
……………………….
Commissioner Bish
Annexure A (336 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (55.6 KB, pdf)
Annexure C (1.41 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- AESK Investments Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1754
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1754
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council's refusal of consent for the subdivision was lawful and reasonable. Aesk Investments argued that the decision was flawed because the council did not consider all relevant matters, failed to properly apply the local planning policies, and acted in a manner that was inconsistent with its own planning instruments. The developer also contended that the council's decision was unreasonable due to the lack of transparency and the failure to provide adequate reasons.
The court considered the principles of administrative law, focusing on whether the council had properly exercised its discretion and followed the legal framework governing planning decisions. The court found that the council had indeed failed to consider all relevant matters and had not adequately applied the local planning policies. Additionally, the court held that the reasons provided by the council were insufficient to justify the decision. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant factors were properly considered and that the decision was made in accordance with the law.
The court ordered that the Wollondilly Shire Council reconsider the application for subdivision consent, taking into account all relevant matters, the local planning policies, and providing clear and 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.