Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Circosta v Lane Cove Council [2018] NSWLEC 1473 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 & 31 August 2018 Date of orders: 03 September 2018 Decision date: 03 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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: Caitriona Maria Circosta (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
J Wauchope, Dentons Australia Pty Ltd (Applicant)
A Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/ 61105 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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend Development Application No. 155/2017 and to rely upon the following amended plans and documents:
DRAWING
DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
REV
DATE
DA 1.00
Cover Sheet
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 1.01
Site / Roof Plan Site Analysis
Design Studio Group
B
23.08.18
DA 1.02
Demolition Plan
Design Studio Group
B
23.08.18
DA 2.01
Proposed Level 2 Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 2.02
Proposed Level 1 Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 2.03
Proposed Basement Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 2.04
Level 2 GFA Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 2.05
Level 1 GFA Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 2.06
Basement GFA Floor Plan
Design Studio Group
D
23.08.18
DA 3.01
South East Elevation
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 3.02
South West Elevation
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 3.03
North West Elevation
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 3.04
North East Elevation
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 4.01
Section A-A
Design Studio Group
C
23.08.18
DA 5.01
Shadows 21st June 9am
Design Studio Group
B
23.08.18
DA 5.02
Shadows 21st June 12noon
Design Studio Group
B
23.08.18
DA 5.03
Shadows 21st June 3pm
Design Studio Group
B
23.08.18
8530DU
Plan Showing Details and Levels Over Lot 2 in DP 305051 at No.60 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville (Sheet 1 of 1)
True North Surveys
16.03.17
01
Landscape Concept Plan
Landscaping By Design Pty Ltd
F
23.08.18
DOCUMENT
PREPARED BY
REV
DATE
BASIX Certificate No. 848635S
Frys Energywise
28 August 2018
External Finishes Schedule
Design Studio Group
A
23 August 2018
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 155/2017 seeking consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling house, carport and some retaining walls, bulk site excavation within the building footprint to establish the basement level and surrounding building to create a rear yard on grade with the basement level, and construction of a two storey dwelling house plus basement with attached 3 car garage, internal lift, in-ground swimming pool, retaining walls and associated landscaping on the land at 60 Lucretia Avenue, Longueville subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A - Slip Rule (263 KB, pdf)
Amendments
13 September 2018 - Pursuant to UCPR 36.17, the slip rule, by consent of the parties, amend orders of 3 September 2018 so that Condition 18 in Annexure “A” now reads:
“18. Check Survey: A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-
a) Basement level - 6.4m RL
b) Pool concourse level - 6.20 RL
c) Ground floor level - 9.5 RL
d) First floor level - 12.60 RL
e) The roof framing; and
f) Excavation of paving and backyard area – 6.40 RL
g) The completion of works.
Note: All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.
Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.”
- AGLC
- Circosta v Lane Cove Council [2018] NSWLEC 1473
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1473
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in the case were whether the Council's decision was unreasonable and whether it had failed to properly consider the environmental impact of the proposed development. The court had to determine whether the Council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and whether it was based on relevant and sufficient evidence. The court also had to consider whether the Council had given proper weight to the environmental concerns raised by the plaintiff.
In its decision, the court found that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable. The court held that the Council had failed to properly consider the environmental impact of the proposed development and had not given proper weight to the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The court also found that the Council had not followed the correct procedures in making its decision. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.
The court's decision in Circosta v Lane Cove Council highlights the importance of proper consideration of environmental factors in planning decisions. The case also underscores the need for councils to follow proper procedures when making planning decisions. The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Council be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
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.