Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1399 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 2 September 2016 Date of orders: 08 September 2016 Decision date: 08 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: At [5]
Catchwords: Appeal under s97AA (a) against deemed refusal of an amendment application [s96(8)]: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cottage Developers Pty Limited (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr. Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ms. Munn, King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/233675 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97AA (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), against the deemed refusal of a modification application under s96(8) of EPA Act. The modification application is seeking to make amendments to the approval DAN0337/13, which is for the construction of 10 self-contained dwellings at 1754 & 1754A Pittwater Rd Bayview.
-
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 are:
The appeal is upheld;
Pursuant to s96(8) development consent is granted to modification of development application number DAN0337/13, at 1754 Pittwater Rd Bayview, subject to the conditions in Annexure A. Amendments as detailed in architectural plans prepared by Macarthur Projects dates 10 June and 30 August 2016 are as follows:
Storage area to Unit 6;
Increase in window area to bedroom and bathroom apartment ground floor Building A;
Minor changes to window dimensions of apartments 3 and 4, skylight to apartment 3, Privacy screen to apartment 2, revised internal layout to ensuite apartment 2, revised detail to courtyard apartment 3, independent WC to apartment 4, minor changes to terrace apartment 4, revised internal layout of bathroom apartment 4;
Minor changes to windows and internal layout of apartments 5 and 6. i. 3057675_2
Minor change to the slope and material detail of the highlight skillion roof to apartments 9 and 10
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner
233675.16 - Annexure A (13.5 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Cottage Developers Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1399
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1399
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the relevant local environmental plan. The developer argued that the council's refusal was based on incorrect interpretations of the zoning and environmental regulations. The council contended that the development would adversely affect the area's character and natural environment. The court carefully analysed the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the compatibility of the proposed development with the statutory and policy framework.
After considering the evidence and arguments, the court found that the council's decision was not unlawful. The court determined that the proposed development did not align with the objectives of the relevant planning instruments, particularly concerning the preservation of the area's character and environmental sustainability. The court held that the council had correctly applied the law and that the developer's proposal failed to meet the necessary standards for approval. The developer's appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
At [5]
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.