Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1404


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1404
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 25 May 2016
Date of orders: 31 August 2016
Decision date: 31 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill 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: Bureau SRH Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms S. Duggan SC (Applicant)
Mr M. Staunton barrister (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Newhouse Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/151238
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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the plans listed in condition A1 of Annexure ‘A’ as the plans relied upon for the purposes of the development application.

  2. The Applicant is to pay the costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 79B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $2,500.00 within 28 days.

  3. The appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application No. DA-419/2016 to demolish existing improvements and to erect a mixed commercial/retail/residential flat building at 110-116 Bronte Road, Bondi Junction, is determined by approving the plans referred to in condition A1 of Annexure ‘A’ and subject to the conditions of development consent set out in Annexure ‘A’

…………………………

Commissioner O’Neill

151238.16 O'Neill (C) (389 KB, pdf)

151238.16 O'Neill - Plans (6.11 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1404
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1404
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bureau SRH Pty Ltd v Waverley Council, the plaintiff, Bureau SRH Pty Ltd, sought to overturn a decision made by the defendant, Waverley Council, to refuse a development application for a property located in Bondi Junction. The dispute centred on the interpretation of zoning laws and the specific criteria set out by the council in their Local Environment Plan. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the council's decision was legally sound and if the plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision based on the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The court was required to determine if the council's decision was unreasonable or if there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process.

The court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and that the criteria used in the Local Environment Plan were correctly applied. The plaintiff's argument that the council had failed to consider certain aspects of the development proposal was rejected as the court found that the council had adequately considered all relevant factors. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no procedural errors in the council's decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the council's decision.

The final orders of the court were that Bureau SRH Pty Ltd pay Waverley Council's costs of the appeal. The development application was denied, and the council's decision stood as it was made.

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.