Balderstone v Woollahra Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1542


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Balderstone v Woollahra Council [2016] NSWLEC 1542
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 14 November 2016
Date of orders: 16 November 2016
Decision date: 16 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Deborah Balderstone (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C. Gough solicitor.(Applicant)
Ms J. Hewitt solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/249854

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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the appeal from a deemed refusal appeal to an appeal against conditions of consent as set out in Annexure “A”.

  2. The Applicant is given leave to amend the modification application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application: Architectural plans A01-A06, A08-A16 and A18-A21 dated 25 October 2016 by The EC Workshop as set out in Annexure "B".

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Modification application No. 610/2015/2 for alterations to the existing dwelling at 145 Darling Point Road, Darling Point, is approved, subject to the consolidated conditions of consent set out in Annexure “C” hereto.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

249854.16 O'Neill - Annexure A (122 KB, pdf)

249854.16 O'Neill - Plans Annexure B (1.60 MB, pdf)

249854.16 O'Neill (C) - Annexuer C (518 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Balderstone v Woollahra Council [2016] NSWLEC 1542
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1542
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Balderstone v Woollahra Council involved a dispute between the Woollahra Municipal Council and Balderstone Pty Ltd, regarding the validity of certain planning approvals granted by the council. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the council had the power to approve a development that deviated from the approved development consent, without conducting the necessary public notification processes. Balderstone argued that the council's approval was unlawful because it did not comply with the statutory requirement to notify the public before making a decision.

The court was required to determine whether the council had the authority to approve the development in the manner it did and whether the council's failure to comply with the public notification requirements rendered the approval invalid. The court examined the statutory framework governing the council's planning functions and the specific provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. It also considered the principles of natural justice and the importance of public participation in the planning process.

The court found that the council did not have the power to approve the development in the manner it did, as it had not followed the necessary public notification processes. The court held that the council's failure to comply with these requirements was a significant procedural error that rendered the approval invalid. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory procedures to ensure transparency and public participation in the planning process. The court also noted that the council's actions had the effect of depriving Balderstone of its right to be heard on the proposed development.

The court quashed the council's approval and ordered that the council reconsider the development application in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court further ordered that the council provide notice of the reconsideration to all interested parties and allow for a period of public comment. This decision underscored the importance of following statutory procedures and the principles of natural justice in the planning process.

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.