Ardill Payne and Partners v Byron Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1419


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ardill Payne & Partners v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1419
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 August 2018
Date of orders: 06 August 2018
Decision date: 06 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon SC
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: Ardill Payne & Partners (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Young, McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)
P Hudson, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/34091
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend Development Application No.10.2017.639.1 (the DA) by substituting the following plans for the plans that are the subject of the DA:

Plan No.

Description

Prepared by

Dated:

01 Rev B

Cover sheet, area schedule

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

02 Rev B

Site (survey) plan

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

03 Rev B

Site plan

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

04 Rev B

Ground floor plan

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

05 Rev B

Roof plan

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

06 Rev B

Sections (1 and 2)

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

07 Rev B

Elevations (east and south)

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

08 Rev B

Elevations (west and north)

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

09 Rev B

Landscape plan, Street elevation

Byron Bay Drafting

26/06/2018

  1. The Applicant’s written request lodged pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 seeking to contravene the development standard in clause 4.1E of the Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 is upheld.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No.10.2017.639.1 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house and the erection of a single storey detached dwelling house (to comprise a dual occupancy on the site) with a car port and car space, including vehicular access to the rear new dwelling via a driveway from Kallaroo Circuit, on the land at 33 Kallaroo Circuit, Ocean Shores (known as Lot 2083 DP 808462), is approved subject to the conditions of consent at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Susan Dixon

Senior Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (294 KB, pdf)

Plans (1.07 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ardill Payne and Partners v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1419
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1419
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ardill Payne and Partners v Byron Shire Council, the plaintiff, a company of town planners, sought compensation for economic loss they suffered when a development approval was revoked by the defendant, Byron Shire Council. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that they had incurred significant costs preparing a development application which was subsequently denied by the Council, and they sought to recover those costs as well as lost profits that they would have made from the proposed development. The Council contended that they had a statutory duty to ensure compliance with planning laws, which justified their revocation of the approval, and that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by the statutory provisions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council had the authority to revoke the development approval and whether the plaintiff could recover economic losses under the circumstances. The court had to interpret the relevant statutory provisions, particularly those related to development approvals and the Council's powers, to determine the validity of the revocation. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether there was a recognised cause of action for economic loss in this context and if the plaintiff's losses were foreseeable and directly caused by the Council's actions.

The court held that the Council did have the authority to revoke the development approval under the planning legislation, as it was necessary to ensure compliance with planning laws and public interest considerations. The court found that the revocation was a legitimate exercise of the Council's statutory powers. Regarding the plaintiff's claims for economic loss, the court determined that there was no established cause of action for such losses in the context of planning approvals. The court reasoned that the statutory framework did not provide for compensation for economic losses incurred by applicants as a result of the revocation of a development approval. Therefore, the plaintiff's claims for both direct economic losses and lost profits were dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by their action. The decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation in planning law and highlighted the limitations on economic loss claims in such contexts. The outcome reinforced the principle that planning authorities have broad powers to ensure compliance with planning laws, and private parties cannot recover economic losses from such exercises of statutory authority.

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.