Cove Residential Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1646


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cove Residential Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1646
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 8 August, 10 & 27 October 2017
Date of orders: 13 November 2017
Decision date: 13 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Maston 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: Cove Residential Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms M Peatman, Hunt & Hunt (Applicant)
(Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/82976
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following amended plans, contained at Annexure "A":

Job No.

Plan Title

Dwg No.

Revision

Date

15340/207

Plan of Proposed Subdivision

1 of 1

01

11/07/2017

15340

Plan Of Proposed Pathway, Landscaping And Facilities

1 of 1

07

18/08/2017

15340

Demolition Plan

02

11/07/2017

15340/207

Envelope Plan

1 of 1

01

11/07/2017

15340

Plan Index

1 of 24

02

18/08/2017

15340

Proposed Civil Works 1

2 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Proposed Civil Works 2

3 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Details 1

4 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Details 2

5 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Cut and Fill Depth Plan

6 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Longsections – Torulosa & Wintle Road

7 of 24

00

19/02/2016

15340

Road Longsections – Road 1 and Road 2

8 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Longsections – Neki Road

9 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Cross Sections – Road 1

10 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Cross Sections – Road 2

11 of 24

00

19/02/2016

15340

Road Cross Sections – Torulosa Road

12 of 24

00

19/02/2016

15340

Road Cross Sections – Wintle Road

13 of 24

00

19/02/2016

15340

Road Cross Sections – Neki Road 1

14 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Cross Sections – Neki Road 2

15 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Cross Sections – Neki Road 3

16 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Road Cross Sections – Neki Road 4 & Typical sections

17 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan 1

18 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan 2

19 of 24

02

18/08/2017

15340

Lot calculation & Tree Planting & Line Marking 1

20 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Lot calculation & Tree Planting & Line Marking 2

21 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Existing Structures & Services Plan 1

22 of 24

02

18/08/2017

15340

Existing Structures & Services Plan 2

23 of 24

01

18/08/2017

15340

Retaining Wall Detail

24 of 24

00

18/08/2017

  1. The appeal in respect of Lot: 1 DP: 1215738, Lot 601 DP 735032, and Lot: 121 DP: 1187365, being 790 and 780 Montpelier Drive, and 12 Emmaline Avenue The Oaks, is upheld.

  2. Development Application DA 430/2016 for the proposed subdivision into 74 lots with new roads, associated works, and demolition of structures, is approved subject to conditions contained in Annexure "B".

  3. The Applicant is pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amended plans pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment at 1979 in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

82976.17 Maston - Annexure A (8.11 MB, pdf)

82976.17 Maston - Annexure B (393 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Cove Residential Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1646
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1646
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cove Residential Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Land and Environment Division. Cove Residential, the appellant, sought a review of a decision made by Wollondilly Shire Council, the respondent, regarding the approval of a development application. The development application pertained to a residential subdivision in the Shire, and Cove Residential was contesting the Council's refusal to approve the application. The primary dispute centred on whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The court was required to decide several key legal issues. These included whether the Council had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant planning instruments, including the Local Environment Plan and any applicable guidelines. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Council's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness or bias, and whether there was any material error in the consideration of the development application. The court also had to determine if the Council's decision was supported by proper reasons, as required by the relevant legislation.

In its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was not adequately supported by proper reasons, thereby failing to comply with statutory requirements. The court held that the Council had not sufficiently explained why it rejected the development application, nor did it provide clear grounds for its decision. This failure meant that the decision-making process was not transparent and did not meet legal standards for procedural fairness. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, ensuring that all relevant criteria and considerations were properly addressed and documented.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the Council's decision, the direction that the Council reconsider the development application in accordance with the court's findings, and the requirement for the Council to provide detailed reasons for its decision upon reconsideration. The case highlights the importance of thorough and transparent decision-making processes in planning approvals, ensuring that all statutory and procedural requirements are met.

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.