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
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
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
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Ardill Payne and Partners v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1419
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1419
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.