Bellona Property Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1023


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BELLONA PROPERTY GROUP PTY. LTD. v SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL [2018] NSWLEC 1023
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 December 2017 & 18 January 2018
Date of orders: 22 January 2018
Decision date: 22 January 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
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: BELLONA PROPERTY GROUP PTY. LTD (Applicant)
SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Applicant)
Mr G McKee, McKees(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/230857
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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in Condition 1 of Annexure “A”.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. 17/0326 demolition if existing dwelling and construction of 4 townhouses and 4 swimming pools is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of s97B of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $3,000.00 to be paid in 14 days.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (301 KB, pdf)

Working Copy Survey Plan_Attachment A_Tree Protection dated 170118 (848 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bellona Property Group PTY. Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1023
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1023
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bellona Property Group Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bellona Property Group, the appellant, sought a review of a decision made by Sutherland Shire Council, the respondent, to refuse development approval for a proposed apartment complex. The dispute centred around the application of the local environmental plan and the alleged procedural unfairness in the council's decision-making process.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development approval was lawful, and whether there were procedural errors in the council's handling of the application. The appellant argued that the council had misapplied the local environmental plan, and that the refusal was not in accordance with the relevant planning principles and policies. Furthermore, Bellona contended that the council had failed to provide reasons for its decision, thus breaching natural justice.

The court examined the planning legislation and relevant case law to determine if the council's decision was justified. It was found that the council's interpretation of the local environmental plan was consistent with the legislative framework, and the decision to refuse development approval was not irrational or unlawful. Regarding the procedural fairness argument, the court held that while the reasons provided by the council could have been more detailed, they were sufficient to meet the requirements of natural justice. The court concluded that the council's decision was legally sound and procedurally fair.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Sutherland Shire Council to refuse development approval was upheld. The orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

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.