BG Dev 1 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1085


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BG Dev 1 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1085
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on
Date of orders: 11 March 2016
Decision date: 11 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: BG Dev 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
J Reid (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Andrews & Holms (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):11228 of 2015
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, 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.

…………….

Commissioner Morris

11228 of 2015 11 March 2016 (165 KB, pdf)

11228 of 2015 Morris (C) Annexure A (10.8 KB, pdf)

11228 of 2015 Morris (C) Annexure B (326 KB, pdf)

11228 of 2015 Morris_Binder1 (860 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
BG Dev 1 Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1085
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1085
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BG Dev 1 Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Waverley Council to refuse consent for the development of a residential apartment complex on a particular piece of land. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the council's decision was unreasonable and contrary to the relevant planning scheme, while the council maintained that the refusal was justified on the basis of the potential adverse environmental impact of the proposed development.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision was unreasonable, and whether it was consistent with the requirements of the relevant planning scheme and environmental legislation. This involved examining the evidence before the council, the reasons given for the decision, and the applicable legal standards. The court had to assess whether the council's findings were based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors, and whether the decision was within the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision-maker could have reached.

In delivering judgment, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable. The court accepted that the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development were significant and that the council had properly considered these factors in reaching its decision. The court also found that the decision was consistent with the relevant planning scheme and environmental legislation. The court held that the council had provided adequate reasons for its decision, and that the applicant had not established that the decision was outside the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision-maker could have reached.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and made no orders as to costs. The council's decision to refuse consent for the development of the residential apartment complex was upheld.

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.