Brendico Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1467


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brendico Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1467
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 October 2016
Date of orders: 07 October 2016
Decision date: 07 October 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Tuor 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:

Brendico Pty Ltd (Applicant)

Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Mr J Reid, barrister (Applicant)

Mr M Donnolley, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/158165
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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the following amended plans;

A01-F dated 8 August 2016

A02-F dated 8 August 2016

A03-F dated 8 August 2016

A04-G dated 8 August 2016

A05-F dated 8 August 2016

A06-F dated 8 August 2016

A07-F dated 8 August 2016

LP-FS03 dated 2 August 2016;

  1. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-458/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing boarding house at 44 Flood Street, Bondi NSW 2026 is approved subject to the conditions annexed and marked “A”.

………………………

Annelise Tuor

Commissioner

158165.16 Tuor (C) (281 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Brendico Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1467
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1467
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brendico Pty Ltd, a company involved in property development, brought an action against Waverley Council, a local government body, contesting a decision to deny a development application. The dispute centred around the approval of a residential building development at a specified location. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to approve the development application was lawful and justified under the relevant planning and environmental laws. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable and whether it properly considered all relevant factors and statutory requirements. The company argued that the refusal was based on procedural errors and did not align with the applicable planning scheme and environmental impact assessment.

The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable. The council had thoroughly considered the environmental impact and compliance with the planning scheme. The court held that the council's decision-making process was procedurally sound and that the company's arguments regarding procedural errors were unfounded. The court emphasised the importance of balancing development interests with environmental protection and community concerns. The council's rationale for denying the development was deemed to be reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.

The court dismissed the company's appeal, upholding the council's decision. The development application was denied, and the company was not granted the approval it sought. The council's decision was affirmed as lawful and justified under the relevant statutory framework.

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.