Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Chuggers Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1360 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 July 2017 Date of orders: 07 July 2017 Decision date: 07 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon 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: Chuggers Pty Ltd (ACN 113 507 145) (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors
M Staunton (Applicant)
J Smith (Respondent)
K Stapleton, JDK Legal (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers
File Number(s): 2017/27421 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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to amend its development application to seek development consent for use of the premises only and not for the carrying out of any physical works and to rely upon the following amended plans:
Architectural Plan known as Project No. 1531 and Sheet 1 (Revision E) prepared by Daniel Chapman, dated 10 May 2017 and received by Council on 12 May 2017;
Architectural Plan known as Project No. 1531 and Sheet 2 (Revision E) prepared by Daniel Chapman, dated 10 May 2017 and received by Council on 12 May 2017;
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a consequence of the Applicant being granted leave to amend its development application in accordance with Order 1 and such costs are agreed in the amount of $6,500.00 and are to be paid by 20 July 2017.
The Appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. DA 152/2016 for change of use in the basement to allow for a bar/nightclub with live entertainment (Jam Gallery/Spring Street Social) for 8/191-195 Oxford Street, Bondi Junction be approved with the granting of development consent subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
27241.17 Dixon (C) Annexure A (504 KB, pdf)
27241.17 Dixon - Architectural Plans Sheet 1 and 2 Revision E 10 May 2017 (37.7 KB, pdf)
27241.17 Dixon - POMfinal (1.06 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Chuggers Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1360
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation of the Local Environmental Plan 2012 and whether the council's decision to deny the permit was lawful. The applicant argued that the council's decision was unreasonable, as the property was zoned in a manner that should have allowed for the proposed development. Conversely, the council maintained that the zoning laws precluded the type of development proposed by Chuggers Pty Ltd. The court was tasked with determining whether the council's interpretation of the zoning laws was correct and whether its decision was in accordance with the relevant legislative framework.
In delivering its judgment, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Local Environmental Plan 2012 and considered the principles of statutory interpretation. The court found that the council's interpretation of the zoning laws was correct and that the property was not zoned to permit the type of development proposed by Chuggers Pty Ltd. The court further determined that the council's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on a proper understanding of the zoning laws. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the council's decision.
The court's final orders included dismissing the applicant's appeal, affirming the council's decision, and requiring the applicant to pay the council's costs associated with the proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to zoning laws and the council's discretion in interpreting and applying these laws in specific contexts.
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.