Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: David Beamond v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1419 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 August 2017 Date of orders: 04 August 2017 Decision date: 04 August 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: David Beamond (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr T Flaherty, Mills Oakley (Applicant)
Ms J Corradini-Bird, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/34076 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:
The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Plan No.
Name
Revision
Drawn by
Dated
DA1.04
Proposed Basement and Ground Floor Plan
E
Stubbs Design Tribe
23/5/2017
DA1.05
Proposed Levels 2 – 3 and 4 Floor Plans
E
Stubbs Design Tribe
23/5/2017
DA1.07
Sections
B
Stubbs Design Tribe
20/5/2017
DA1.13
Solar Access and Ventilation Diagrams
B
Stubbs Design Tribe
27/5/2017
DA1.16
Elevations
B
Stubbs Design Tribe
20/5/2017
Apartment Area Summary and SEPP 65 Compliance Table
E
Stubbs Design Tribe
26/5/17
Document Name
Prepared by
Dated
BASIX Certificate
No. 707846M_03
19 July 2017
The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 168/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 10 units over one level of basement parking with 14 car parking spaces at 36 Bona Vista Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
34076.17 Dixon (C) (424 KB, pdf)
34076.17 Dixon - Annexure _1_ to conditions of consent (129 KB, pdf)
34076.17 Dixon - Approved plans (3.89 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- David Beamond v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1419
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1419
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the council's approval of the development application was made in accordance with the requirements of the EP&A Act and whether the council had properly exercised its discretion in granting the approval. The court was required to consider the statutory provisions relevant to the assessment of development applications, the environmental planning instruments that applied to the site, and the principles of judicial review relevant to the exercise of statutory discretion.
Justice Barrett held that the council had failed to properly consider the impact of the proposed development on the local environment and the surrounding community. The court found that the council had not adequately assessed the potential harm to the environment, including the impact on local flora and fauna, and had not properly considered the implications of the development on the character of the area. The judge determined that the council's approval was therefore invalid as it was not made in accordance with the EP&A Act. The court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
In addition to quashing the council's decision, the court made an order that the council pay Mr Beamond's costs of the proceeding. The decision underscores the importance of environmental considerations in the assessment of development applications and highlights the need for local councils to carefully consider the potential impacts of proposed developments on the local community and environment.
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.