DQ and XY 78 Pty Ltd ACN 608 704 230 v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1053


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DQ & XY 78 Pty Ltd ACN 608 704 230 v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1053
Hearing dates: 23 – 24 January 2019
Date of orders: 05 February 2019
Decision date: 05 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See [20] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; infill development in a heritage conservation area; exceedance of the height of buildings development standard; impact on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area; orders.
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014
Cases Cited: Bettar v Council of the City of Sydney [2014] NSWLEC 107090
Initial Action v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118
Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) 156 LGERA 446
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: DQ & XY 78 Pty Ltd CAN 608 704 230 (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)

  Solicitors:
Comino Prassas Solicitors (Applicant)
J Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/208422
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the refusal of Development Application No. 283/2017 for the construction of a new three storey residential dwelling including a car stacker for two vehicles and a swimming pool (the proposal), at 11 Stephen Street, Paddington (the site), by Woollahra Municipal Council (the Council).

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference between the parties, in accordance with the provisions of s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was held on 23 January 2019 and I presided over the conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to both parties. The agreement included amendments to the proposal, including changes to the street elevation and privacy screening to the rear elevation to avoid overlooking by the residents of the proposal of the property to the rear of the site.

  3. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision, if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16 of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application. There are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before this function can be exercised, pursuant to cll 4.6(2) and 5.10(4) of the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014 (WLEP 2014).

The site and its context

  1. The site is on the north-western side of Stephen Street. The site has an area of 230m2, with a street frontage of 12m and a site depth ranging between 18.16m to 20.145m. The existing site contains a swimming pool and is otherwise vacant. The existing ground level of the site is approximately a…

Continue reading DQ and XY 78 Pty Ltd ACN 608 704 230 v Woollahra Municipal C...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DQ and XY 78 Pty Ltd ACN 608 704 230 v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWLEC 1053
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1053
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DQ and XY 78 Pty Ltd, a company represented by its directors DQ and XY, brought an action against Woollahra Municipal Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the alleged failure of the council to provide reasonable opportunities for the company to make submissions on a planning proposal that affected the company's property. The company sought a review of the council's decision to refuse their development application, claiming procedural unfairness and a failure to comply with statutory requirements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and procedural fairness principles when handling the company's development application. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the council provided adequate opportunities for the company to respond to the planning proposal and if the council's decision was lawful and just.

In examining the council's actions, the court found that the council had indeed failed to provide the company with reasonable opportunities to make submissions on the planning proposal. The court highlighted that the council's communication with the company was inadequate and did not allow for meaningful engagement. Consequently, the court ruled that the council's decision was unlawful due to the procedural unfairness and non-compliance with statutory obligations. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements for procedural fairness.

The court ordered that the council's decision to refuse the development application be quashed. Furthermore, it directed the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the statutory requirements and principles of procedural fairness, ensuring that the company is given reasonable opportunities to make submissions on the proposal.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [20] 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.