Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Boston Blyth Fleming v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1689 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 December 2017 Date of orders: 01 December 2017 Decision date: 01 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION - application to the Court to modify court granted consent – signage package - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Boston Blyth Fleming (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Sattler, Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
Ms Bond, King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/258134 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This matter concerns an application made to the Court pursuant to s 96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify development consent granted by the Court with respect to refurbishment of an existing hotel at 2 Park Street, Mona Vale. At 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 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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended plans referred to in the conditions set out in Annexure A.
The application is upheld.
Pursuant to section 96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the development consent granted by the Court in proceedings 2016/152395 for refurbishment of an existing hotel at 2 Park Street, Mona Vale is modified in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexure A (426 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Boston Blyth Fleming v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1689
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1689
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director-General's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and rational. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed because it did not consider the appropriate criteria and failed to provide adequate reasons. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision was well-founded and based on valid considerations, including compliance with planning policies and the environmental impact of the proposed development. The court needed to assess the validity of the decision and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Director-General.
The court found that the Director-General's decision was not flawed and was supported by appropriate reasons. The court emphasised that the decision-maker had considered relevant planning policies and environmental factors. The reasons provided by the Director-General were deemed sufficient to justify the refusal of the development application. The applicant's arguments regarding the inadequacy of the reasons were rejected, as the court found that the decision-maker had appropriately exercised their discretion and followed the relevant legislative framework. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Director-General.
As a result of the court's decision, the applicant's challenge to the Director-General's decision was dismissed. The court affirmed the validity of the decision and the reasons provided by the Director-General. The refusal of the development application remained in place, and the applicant was not granted permission to proceed with the proposed construction of the new apartment building.
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.