Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1327 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 August 2016 Date of orders: 08 August 2016 Decision date: 08 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION: modification of approval for demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr G. McKee (Applicant)
Mr Dyer (Respondent)
McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00188437 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of an application to modify Development Application number DA297/2012 for the demolition of all existing improvements and construction of a residential flat building at 102 Bower street and 12-13 Marine Parade Manly.
-
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, 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 appeal is upheld.
The modification application filed with the Court on 21 June 2016 in relation to Development Application number DA297/2012 relating to the land at 102 Bower Street and 12-13 Marine Parade, Manly, NSW, for the “section 96 application to modify approved Demolition of the existing buildings, construction of a five (5) storey Residential Flat Building containing six (6) units with a two (2) level car park, decks and landscaping – involving increase in lift overrun, increase in floor levels, changes to windows, new front entrance, changes of mechanical ventilation to level 3, changes to internal configurations, changes to external finishes, changes to car parking ramp – Part 3” is approved subject to the consolidated conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.
…………….
G T Brown
Commissioner
188437.16 - Annexure A (109 KB, pdf)
Amendments
11 August 2016 - Typographical error corrected on the cover sheet.
- AGLC
- Cam No. 2 Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1327
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1327
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Council had a duty to provide the plaintiff with prior notice of the proposed development and, if so, whether the Council's failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty. The court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff's losses were directly attributable to the Council's failure to provide notice, and, if so, whether the Council was liable for damages.
The court found that the Council did indeed have a duty to provide notice to the plaintiff under the Local Government Act 2019 (NSW). However, the court held that the Council's failure to provide notice did not constitute a breach of this duty as the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the proposed development through other means. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's losses were not directly attributable to the Council's failure to provide notice, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
In light of the above, the court made no orders for damages or compensation. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.