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:
Solicitor:
Mr M Seymour (Applicant)
Mr R Burke, Gilbert Mane Solicitors (Applicant)
Mr P Rigg (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/53962 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
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
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.
The appeal is upheld.
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)
- AGLC
- Burke v Woollahra Council [2017] NSWLEC 1363
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1363
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.