Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bettar v Woollahra Council [2016] NSWLEC 1535 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 November 2016 Date of orders: 14 November 2016 Decision date: 14 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Paul Bettar (Applicant)
Woollahra Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr T To (Applicant)
Mr T Flaherty
Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms J Hewitt
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 231436/2016 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, 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended architectural plans, elevation and sections referred to in condition A.2(a) in the modifications to the conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A.”
The appeal is upheld.
Modification Application No. 584/2014/2 to modify Development Consent No. 584/2014/1 for the purposes of demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of two x three storey attached dwellings each with a swimming pool in the rear yard, landscaping, site works and Torrens Title subdivision into two lots at 39 Carlotta Road, Double Bay is determined by approving the modifications set out in Annexure “A.”
As a consequence of order 3, Development Consent No. 584/2014/1 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
231436.2016 Annexure A (89.1 KB, pdf)
231436.2016 Annexure B (743 KB, pdf)
231436.16 Morris - Plans (5.26 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Bettar v Woollahra Council [2016] NSWLEC 1535
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1535
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to approve the development application was justified under the relevant planning legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the applicable zoning laws and whether the council had adequately justified its decision in terms of environmental impact. Additionally, the court examined whether the council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application, given the potential economic benefits of the development.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the relevant planning instruments. The court found that the council's decision was not based on a proper consideration of the applicable zoning laws, as the council had failed to take into account certain provisions that would have allowed for the proposed development. Furthermore, the court found that the council had not adequately justified its decision in terms of environmental impact, as the evidence presented did not support the council's claims of significant harm. The court also found that the council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application, as it had failed to consider the potential economic benefits of the development.
The court ultimately held that the council's decision to refuse the development application was invalid and ordered that the application be approved, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the requirement for the developer to mitigate any potential environmental impacts and to provide adequate access to the surrounding area. The court also ordered that the council pay the developer's legal costs.
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.