Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 3)

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1018


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 1018
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference 12 December 2019
Date of orders: 17 January 2020
Decision date: 17 January 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Morris AC
Decision:

See orders at [9]

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – subdivision – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011
Cases Cited: Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 181
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Samuel Cavanagh (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent
Representation:

Counsel:
C Shaw (Solicitor) (Applicant)
A Bradbury (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Applicant)
Bradbury Allen Love Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/95577
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the deemed refusal by Wollondilly Shire Council of Development Application No. 784/2018 which seeks consent for a five lot subdivision of Lot6 DP1128635 to be carried out at 11 Westminster Place, Razorback.

  2. A preliminary question to determine the permissibility of the proposed subdivision was decided by Robson J in Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 2) [2019] NSWLEC 181. That decision determined that consent can be granted to the proposed subdivision pursuant to the provisions of cl 4.1B of Wollondilly Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP).

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 12 December 2019. I have presided over the conciliation conference.

  4. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The decision agreed upon is to uphold the appeal and to grant development consent subject to conditions of consent, pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act. That agreement was based on amended plans prepared by the applicant, which, according to the council’s experts, addressed the contentions in the case.

  5. As the presiding Commissioner, I am satisfied that the decision is one that the Court can make in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  6. I have formed this state of satisfaction because the development is permissible; the lots are larger than provided for as minimum lots sizes under cl 4.1 of the LEP; adequate provision for servicing of the lots as required under cl 7.1 of the LEP has been demonstrated; no works are proposed in areas designated as “sensitive land” and I am satisfied the development will no adversely impact those areas (cl 7.3); the subdivision has been designed to minimise the extent of earthworks (cl 7.5); there is no evidence of contamination; a Fire Safety Authority has been issued by the Rural Fire Service and there are no jurisdictional issues that would prevent the grant of consent.

  7. The conditions of consent address the agreed position of the experts in the proceedings.

  8. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of is functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely on the amended plans and additional information, which involve amendments that the parties agree are minor. The amended and additional plans include the following:

Drawing(s)

Reference / Version

Prepared By

Dated

Drawing No: 150715-sub Staging Plan for Proposed Subdivision, Sheet 1 of 2, Lot 6 DP 1128635

Sheet 1 of 2

Revision G

Sydney Land Surveyors

12 December 2019

Drawing No: 150715-sub Staging Plan for Proposed Subdivision, Sheet 2 of 2, Lot 6 DP 1128635

Revision F

Sydney Land Surveyors

10 December 2019

Drawing NO 19048–1372-101, General Overview Plan,

Sheet 1 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-102, General Arrangement Plan

Sheet 2 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-103, Road Layout Plan 1 of 2

Sheet 3 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-104, Road Layout Plan 2 of 2

Sheet 4 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-105, Westminster Road Sections

Sheet 5 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-106, Lot 1 & 2 Access Sections

Sheet 6 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-107, Lot 3, 4 & 5 Access Sections

Sheet 7 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-108, Earthworks Plan

Sheet 8 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-109, Soil & Water Management Plan

Sheet 9 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No: 19048-1372-110, Soil & Water Management Details

Sheet 10 of 10

Revision 0

CivPlan

5 December 2019

Drawing No. 150715 – BF

Plan of Proposed Subdivision – Bushfire APZ

Aerial

Sheet 1 of 1

Revision D

Bushfire APZ

4 December 2019

Drawing No. 150715 – BF

Plan of Proposed Subdivision – Bushfire APZ

Sheet 1 of 1

Revision D

Bushfire APZ

4 December 2019

  1. The Appeal is upheld.

  2. Development Application No. 784/2018 for a five lot subdivision of Lot 6 DP1128635 to be carried out at 11 Westminster Place, Razorback NSW 2571 is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………..

Sue Morris

Acting Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (144 KB)

**********

Details
AGLC
Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 3) [2020] NSWLEC 1018
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1018
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cavanagh v Wollondilly Shire Council (No 3), Cavanagh, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by Wollondilly Shire Council to refuse an application for development approval for a property located in the Wollondilly Shire. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the council's decision was flawed and that the refusal of approval was unreasonable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, or was otherwise irrational. The applicant contended that the council had not properly assessed the application against the relevant planning policies and had instead relied on improper considerations. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was based on relevant considerations and was in accordance with the planning policies.

In determining the matter, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant planning policies. The court found that the council had not fully assessed the application against the relevant planning policies and had instead relied on irrelevant considerations. The court further found that the council's decision was unreasonable as it failed to take into account relevant considerations. The court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the relevant planning policies.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [9]

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.