Chateau Architects and Builders Pty Ltd v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1622


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chateau Architects & Builders Pty Ltd v Hunter’s Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1622
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 November 2018
Date of orders: 30 November 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See [9] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Chateau Architects & Builders Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton, (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Creagh & Creagh (Applicant)
A Epstein, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00174272
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Hunters Hill Council of Development Application (DA) 2017/1202, which seeks the construction of a new two storey house with basement, new pool and landscaping works at 3 Barons Crescent Hunters Hill (Lot 2 DP 4275).

  2. This Class 1 appeal is made under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act 1979). The Court is required to make a determination pursuant to s 4.16 of the EPA Act 1979.

  3. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act 1979) between the parties, which was held on 23 November 2018. I have presided over the conciliation conference. There were no objectors to this appeal.

  4. As a result of the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision is to uphold the appeal and grant consent to DA 2017/1202 with conditions.

  5. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 4.16(1)(a) of the EPA Act 1979 to grant consent to the development application with conditions.

  6. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of particular relevance in these proceedings, pursuant to s 4.16(1) of the EPA Act 1979, as consistent with the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HHELP 2012). In particular, the parties explained that consistency with floor space ratio requirements as specified in cl 4.4 of the HHLEP 2012, are achieved through consistency with height and landscape requirements, pursuant to cll 4.3 and 6.9, respectively. The amended plans result in improved streetscape in character with the area and no amenity impacts.

  7. I am therefore satisfied that the parties' decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979.

  8. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act 1979 to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely on the amended drawings dated 9 November 2018 annexed hereto and marked "A".

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2017-1202 for construction of a new two storey house with basement, new pool and landscaping works at No. 3 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “B”.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (6.42 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (402 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Chateau Architects and Builders Pty Ltd v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1622
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1622
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Chateau Architects and Builders Pty Ltd and Hunter's Hill Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Chateau Architects, the plaintiff, sought to challenge the decision of Hunter's Hill Council, the defendant, to refuse their application to build a residential apartment complex in Hunters Hill. The primary contention was whether the Council's decision was legally sound, particularly focusing on the interpretation and application of relevant planning laws and by-laws.

The central legal issue that the Court had to address was whether the Council's refusal to grant planning permission was justified under the planning legislation and the specific criteria set forth in the local planning instruments. Additionally, the Court examined the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Council for their decision and whether these reasons were supported by substantial evidence. The plaintiff also argued that the Council's decision contravened the statutory requirement for consistency in decision-making and the principle of procedural fairness.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Council's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence and was therefore invalid. The Court held that the Council had failed to adequately justify its refusal based on the criteria outlined in the planning instruments. Furthermore, the Court determined that the reasons provided by the Council did not sufficiently address the specific concerns raised by Chateau Architects, leading to a conclusion that the decision-making process was flawed. As a result, the Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings. The Court also ordered that the Council provide a detailed written explanation of its decision-making process, ensuring it adhered to the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [9] 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.