Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bonett v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1583 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 November 2018 Date of orders: 08 November 2018 Decision date: 08 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: See [6] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Debra Bonett (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
P Brown, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/145098 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
COMMISSIONER:
-
This Class 1 appeal concerns a modification application pursuant to s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect of a development consent issued by Hunters Hill Council on 19 June 2017. The original consent authorised the subdivision of land at 34 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill into two lots and the erection of a new dwelling, with a swimming pool and landscaping on each allotment.
-
The applicant has proposed an amended landscaping plan and the relocation of one of the swimming pools to better preserve existing vegetation. The Council is satisfied the proposed modifications do not substantially change the development as originally approved and find the amendments appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
-
As there is no jurisdictional impediment to the application and the decision is one that the Court could make in the proper exercise of its functions, I must endorse the agreement reached by the parties at the conciliation conference held today under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (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)).
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is given leave to amend the application and rely on the following:
Amended Landscape Plan prepared by 'John Chetham, and Associates', revision Q, dated 31 October 2018, drawing No. 34BC/LP/S96/01;
Landscape Preparation and Management Plan prepared by 'John Chetham, and Associates' and dated 7 November 2018;
Arboricultural Report prepared by 'Tree Wise Men Australia Pty Ltd' and dated 7 November 2018,
copies of which are contained at Annexures "A1", "A2" and "A3".
The appeal is upheld.
That Modification Application 2016-1171-1S96(1a) for the modification of deferred commencement conditions and general conditions, is determined by approving the modifications as set out in Annexure "B".
As a consequence of order 6(3), Development Consent 2016-1171 for demolition of existing dwellings, 2 Lot Torrens Title subdivision plus erect new dwelling on each new lot plus swimming pool and landscaping at 34 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill is now subject to the consolidated conditions of development consent as set out in Annexure "C".
……………………….
S Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A1 (1.74 MB, pdf)
Annexure A2 (265 KB, pdf)
Annexure A3 (5.61 MB, pdf)
Annexures B and C (200 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Bonett v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1583
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1583
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and whether the decision was reasonable in the circumstances. The applicant contended that the council failed to adequately consider the benefits of the proposed use and the impact on the local area. The council, on the other hand, argued that the proposed use was not in keeping with the character of the area and would result in unacceptable noise and traffic issues.
The court found that the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and was not unreasonable. The court held that the council was entitled to take into account the character of the area and the potential impact of the proposed use on the neighbourhood. The court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed use would not result in unacceptable noise and traffic issues. As a result, the court dismissed the application for review.
The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding to the council. The court noted that the applicant's application was not well-founded and had no reasonable prospect of success. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their case.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [6] 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.