Ascot Project Management Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1267

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ascot Project Management Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1267
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 11, 24 May, 14, 20 June 2016
Date of orders: 20 June 2016
Decision date: 20 June 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Hussey AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: Development Application: Community Title Subdivision for 20 Lots. Wastewater, infrastructure provision; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ascot Project Management Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr N. Eastman (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mr Matt Sonter, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)
File Number(s):150752 of 2016
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. ACTING 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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA 540/2015 for a 20 lot community title subdivision and construction of associated infrastructure and access roads located at 10 Fern Creek Road, Warriewood is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.

….……….

R Hussey

Acting Commissioner

150752.16 - Annexure A (138 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Ascot Project Management Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1267
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Ascot Project Management Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Northern Beaches Council, the respondent. The appellant sought a review of the respondent's decision to refuse a permit for the construction of a residential apartment complex. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, a superior court of record with jurisdiction over environmental and land use matters.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to refuse the permit was lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and whether the decision was within the scope of the statutory powers granted to the respondent. The court also had to determine whether the respondent's decision was affected by any procedural errors or irregularities.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent's decision was lawful and reasonable. The court held that the respondent had properly considered the relevant statutory criteria and had acted within the scope of its statutory powers. The court also found that there were no procedural errors or irregularities that affected the decision. The court further held that the respondent's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

As a result of the court's decision, the appellant's application for review was dismissed with costs. The court also made a declaration that the respondent's decision to refuse the permit was valid and binding. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

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.