Burmeister v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1102


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burmeister v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1102
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 March 2018
Date of orders: 02 March 2018
Decision date: 02 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson 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: Virginia Burmeister (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Tony Sattler, Sattler and Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Andrew Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/270535
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 rely on an amended development application incorporating:

  1. architectural plans prepared by Cadence & Co, dated 1 March 2018, issue LC2 and Drawing No.s A02 to A13; and

  2. BASIX Certificate No. A258757_03.

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application 37/2017 for alterations and additions to an existing building for the purpose of a dwelling house, including new third level and new swimming pool at No. 35 Ashburner Street, Manly is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Jenny Smithson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (75.3 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (1.78 MB, pdf)

Annexure C (954 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Burmeister v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1102
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1102
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter are Burmeister, the plaintiff, and Northern Beaches Council, the defendant. The dispute centres around a matter of land use and development, specifically the plaintiff's application for a development approval to build a residential property on land that he owned. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a review of the council's decision to refuse his application for a development approval. The legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court considered whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning instruments and whether the decision was based on proper and relevant considerations. The court found that the council's decision was procedurally fair and that it had correctly applied the relevant planning instruments. However, the court also found that the council had failed to properly consider all relevant factors, including the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environment. As a result, the court set aside the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court found that the council should have given greater weight to the environmental impacts of the proposed development and that this omission rendered the decision unlawful. The final orders of the court were that the council's decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The court also ordered that the council pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

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.