Bruce Robertson v Wingecarribee Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1584


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bruce Robertson v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1584
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 September 2017
Date of orders: 06 October 2017
Decision date: 06 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: BRUCE ROBERTSON (First Applicant)
FIONA ROBERTSON (Second Applicant)
WINGECARRIBEE SHIRE COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth (Applicant)
Mr C Shaw, Shaw Reynolds Bowen & Gerathy (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/144900
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 make, 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 amend the development application and rely on the plans referred to in Condition 2 of Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application Number DA17/0195 for the construction of single-storey farm outbuilding at 11 Ormond Street, Sutton Forest is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

  4. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the amount of $5000 within 21 days of the date of these orders.

……………………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner of the Land & Environment Court of NSW

Annexure A (1.16 MB, pdf)

Plans (1.08 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bruce Robertson v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1584
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1584
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bruce Robertson versus Wingecarribee Shire Council, the dispute arose when Bruce Robertson, a property owner, challenged a decision by the council to deny a development application for a small business. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the council's decision was lawful and based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies and legislation. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and considered the applicable planning laws and policies. The council argued that the proposed development did not align with the local planning policies and would have adverse environmental impacts. Robertson contended that the council's decision was unreasonable and that the council had not properly considered all relevant factors. The court found that the council had indeed considered the relevant planning policies but failed to adequately address certain environmental concerns. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, but there were shortcomings in the consideration of the environmental impacts.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the council's decision was not lawful due to the inadequate consideration of the environmental impacts. The court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant factors, including the environmental impacts, were properly assessed. The court did not order any costs, finding that the matter was complex and required detailed consideration.

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.