Bouchard v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1529


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bouchard v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1529
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 27 October 2016
Date of orders: 09 November 2016
Decision date: 09 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: alterations and additions to an existing dwelling; 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: Bruce Bouchard (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Hartley, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr K Webber, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00218945
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No DA-234/2016 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 6 Ashley Street Tamarama.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 rely on the plans listed under Condition 1(a) below the heading ‘A. Approved Development’ in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $1,000.00.

  3. Appeal upheld; and

  4. Development application number DA-234/2016 for partial demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling house is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

218945.16 - Annexure A (179 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bouchard v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1529
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1529
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bouchard v Waverley Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose between the applicant, Mr Bouchard, and the respondent, Waverley Council, concerning the legality of a development approval granted by the Council. Mr Bouchard sought to challenge the decision on several grounds, primarily arguing that the development approval was obtained through improper means and was therefore invalid.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the development approval granted by the respondent was obtained through a process that complied with the relevant legislative provisions. Specifically, Mr Bouchard contended that the approval was procured by misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of the respondent. The court was required to determine whether the actions of the respondent amounted to such conduct, and if so, whether this invalidated the development approval.

The court, in its reasoning, thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the process through which the development approval was obtained. It found that the respondent's actions did indeed involve misleading and deceptive conduct, as they failed to disclose material information that was critical to the decision-making process. As a result, the court held that the approval was obtained through improper means and was thus invalid. The court also considered the implications of this finding on the ongoing development project and provided guidance on the appropriate steps the respondent should take to rectify the situation.

In its final orders, the court declared the development approval invalid, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court further directed that the respondent take specific steps to ensure transparency and compliance in any future decision-making processes related to the development project.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) 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.