Burke v Woollahra Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1363


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burke v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1363
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 & 26 June 2017
Date of orders: 11 July 2017
Decision date: 11 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray 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: Adir Burke (Applicant)
Woollahra Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Seymour (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Mr R Burke, Gilbert Mane Solicitors (Applicant)
Mr P Rigg (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/53962
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 be granted leave to rely upon the following amended plans (at Annexure “B”):

Reference

Description

Author/Drawn

Date(s)

DA00.2 A Legend

DA00.3 C Finishes Schedule

DA01.1 D Site Plan

DA02.1 B Lower Ground Plan

DA02.2 B Ground Floor Plan

DA02.3 D First Floor Plan

DA02.5 C Roof Plan

DA03.1 C South Elevation

DA03.2 C North Elevation

DA03.3 C East and West Elevations

DA04.1 C Sections

Da04.2 B Sections – Ex Ground Level

Architectural Plans

Maccormick and Associates Architects

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

13.06.2017

767919S

BASIX Certificate

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure

03.11.2016

Drawing No. s LS01-DA/A, LS02-DA/A, sheets 1 & 2

Landscape Plan

Melissa Wilson

27/10/2016

Arboricultural Impact Report

Guy Paroissien – Landscape Matrix

31/10/2016

Correspondence from Arborist

Guy Paroissien – Landscape Matrix

07/06/2017

P1605592JR01-V02

Geotechnical Report

Martens Consulting Engineer

3 February 2016

16044

DA-C3.01-Rev 02

DA-C3.02-Rev 02

DA-C5.01-Rev 02

Stormwater Plan

Dawes Consulting Engineer

27/10/16

  1. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs arising under section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed at $2,500.00 within 14 days.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA-2016/475 received by the Respondent on 4 November 2016 for demolition of existing dwelling and garage and construction of new dwelling-house and associated landscaping works at 15 Towns Road Vaucluse (as amended), is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure "A".

……………………….

Commissioner Gray

53962.17 Gray (C) (306 KB, pdf)

53962.17 Gray - Amended Plans 15 Towns Rd (4.24 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Burke v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1363
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1363
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burke v Woollahra Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr. Burke, sought a declaration that the Woollahra Local Council's refusal to grant a development application for his property was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The property in question was located in a heritage precinct and had undergone various changes over time, prompting the council to deny the application on the basis that it did not align with the character of the area.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had correctly applied the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether its decision was based on improper considerations or was otherwise unreasonable. Additionally, the court considered whether the council had taken into account the proper weight of the heritage value of the area when making its decision.

The court held that the council's decision was indeed unreasonable and unlawful. The judge found that the council had failed to properly consider the heritage values of the precinct and had instead given undue weight to other factors. Furthermore, the decision was influenced by matters outside the scope of the planning laws, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the court granted Mr. Burke the declaration he sought, finding that the council's decision was not in accordance with the law.

The orders made by the court included a declaration that the council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The court further directed the council to reconsider the application in light of the decision, ensuring that all relevant planning laws and policies were correctly applied and that proper consideration was given to the heritage values of the area. The case underscores the importance of adhering to planning laws and ensuring that all decisions are made on a lawful and reasonable basis.

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.