Bryson v North Sydney Council

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1587


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bryson v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1587
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 November 2020
Date of orders: 26 November 2020
Decision date: 26 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The order be varied in accordance with the terms set out in the amended order and plan annexed hereto and marked “A”.

Catchwords:

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Texts Cited:

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (July 2020)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Bryson (Applicant)
North Sydney Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G Hartley (Solicitor) (Applicant)
C Sorensen (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Hall & Willcox (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/316133
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: Richard Bryson (the Applicant) has appealed the decision of North Sydney Council (the Respondent) to issue a Development Control Order under s 9.34, Sch 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The terms of the Development Control Order is in two parts:

  1. Development Control Order No. 1 requires that the Applicant cease the use of a property at 1/9 Tobruk Ave, Cremorne (the Subject Site) as a dual occupancy; and

  2. Development Control Order No. 11 requires that the Applicant should reinstate the internal layout of the Subject Site in accordance with a Complying Development Certificate (2015-CDC) issued by DK Building Certifiers dated 8 January 2003 by undertaking certain specified works.

  1. The appeal comes to the Court pursuant to s 8.18 of the EP&A Act and falls within Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction. The proceedings are determined pursuant to the provisions of s 8.18(4) of the EP&A Act.

  2. The Court had arranged a conciliation conference under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the Parties, which was held on 20 November 2020, and I presided over that conciliation conference.

  3. The conciliation conference was convened in a manner consistent with the Court’s COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy (the Policy), and no site view was undertaken during the conference.

  4. At the conciliation conference, the Parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the Parties. This decision involved the Court upholding the appeal and granting consent to the Applicant’s development application, subject to conditions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties’ decision if the Parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.

  6. There are no jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before the Court can exercise the power to determine the appeal under s 8.18(4) of the EP&A Act.

  7. I am satisfied that the Parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  8. As the Parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the Parties’ decision.

  9. 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.

  10. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. The order be varied in accordance with the terms set out in the amended order and plan annexed hereto and marked “A”.

…………………………..

M Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (140960, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Bryson v North Sydney Council [2020] NSWLEC 1587
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1587
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bryson v North Sydney Council is a case before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Bryson, the appellant, contests a decision of the North Sydney Council, the respondent, regarding a development application. The central dispute revolves around the approval of a development that Bryson seeks to undertake on a piece of land, with the Council having previously rejected the application. Bryson is appealing this decision, arguing that the Council's refusal was unreasonable and should be overturned.

The legal issues before the court pertain to the scope and application of the relevant planning laws and policies under the Local Government Act 1993, and whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and properly made in accordance with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Council correctly applied the planning controls and whether its decision was based on valid and justifiable grounds.

The Court, in its judgment, found that the Council had erred in its interpretation of the planning laws and policies, and that its decision was not supported by the evidence presented. The Court held that the Council failed to properly consider certain aspects of the development application, including the potential benefits and impacts on the local community. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Council's reasons for refusing the application were not consistent with the statutory requirements, leading to an outcome that was deemed unreasonable. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and varied the order as per the amended order and plan annexed to the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) The order be varied in accordance with the terms set out in the amended order and plan annexed hereto and marked “A”.

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.