Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Baudinet v Lake Macquarie City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1547 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 December 2015 Date of orders: 23 December 2015 Decision date: 23 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Pearson C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of dwelling house, retaining walls, swimming pool and half tennis court; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Heritage Act 1977
Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961
Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bruce Warren Baudinet and Lindsay Anne Baudinet (Applicants)
Lake Macquarie City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J McKelvey (Applicants)
Mr J Connors (Respondent)
Mr A Mutton, Andrews & Holm (Applicants)
Mr S Lucy, Lake Macquarie City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 10806 of 2015 Publication restriction: Nil
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.
-
The development application the subject of the appeal is for the construction of a dwelling house, retaining walls, swimming pool and half tennis court at 25 Hale Street Catherine Hill Bay, on the site of the former Wallarah House which was damaged by fire in 2013. The development application is for integrated development, as approvals under the Heritage Act 1977 and the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 are required. The parties have provided a copy of an assessment of the application by the Council’s Senior Development Planner, which includes determination of permissibility pursuant to cl 142 of the Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004; and copies of written submissions made in response to the Council’s notification of the amended plans which are the subject of Order 1. The proposed Conditions contained in Annexure A include conditions required by the NSW Heritage Council in its assessment of the amended application, including the public submissions, and its determination to issue General Terms of Approval.
-
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, 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 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.
…………….
Linda Pearson
Commissioner
10806 of 2015 Orders (8.31 KB, pdf)
10806 of 2015 - Annexure A (121 KB, pdf)
15.10806_2 - Revised_Set (16.9 MB, pdf)
Amendments
24 December 2015 - Attachments modified.
- AGLC
- Baudinet v Lake Macquarie City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1547
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 1547
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision was unreasonable in a Wednesbury sense, whether the council had properly considered relevant environmental and planning legislation, and whether the council had acted in a procedurally fair manner. The plaintiffs argued that the council had failed to adequately consider the potential environmental impacts of the development and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was reasonable and based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors.
The court found that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable. The court held that the council had not properly considered the potential environmental impacts of the development, and that the reasons provided for the decision were inadequate. The court found that the council had failed to properly apply the relevant planning and environmental legislation, and that its decision was therefore unlawful. The court further found that the council had not acted in a procedurally fair manner, as it had not provided the plaintiffs with an adequate opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the decision.
As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiffs' application for judicial review was successful. The court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The council was ordered to provide the plaintiffs with an opportunity to make further submissions and to consider all relevant factors in making its decision. The court also ordered the council to provide reasons for its decision that addressed the issues identified by the court.
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.