Drake v Randwick City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 98
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 16 September 2021
Decision date: 16 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Moore J
Decision:

See orders at [35]

Catchwords:

COSTS - Applicant commences Class 4 proceedings seeking declaratory relief - proceedings concerned application of cl 4.1A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to nominated development proposal plans - Applicant subsequently amends relief - amended relief seeks abstract judicial advice concerning cl 4.1A - not appropriate to give judicial advice sought – related Class 1 proceedings based on cl 4.1A fail because design merit proceedings fail - Class 4 proceedings dismissed - no reason to depart from presumption that costs follow the event - Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of Class 4 proceedings - Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of Class 4 costs consideration

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 56A and 57

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, cl 4.1A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:

Albert Square NSW Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1401

Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 97

Kelly v Randwick City Council; Drake v Randwick City Council [2021] NSWLEC 68

Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6

Category:Costs
Parties: Lea Ellen Cecilia Drake (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Tomasetti SC (Applicant) (Respondent on costs application)
Mr M Astill, barrister (Respondent) (Applicant on costs application)

Solicitors:
Mr C Kelly (Applicant) (Respondent on costs application)
Randwick City Council (Respondent) (Applicant on costs application)
File Number(s): 365534 of 2020
Publication restriction: No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

The costs determination process

Introduction

The relevant statutory provisions

The written submissions

The Council's submissions

The submissions for Ms Drake

The Council's submissions in reply

Consideration

Costs

Orders

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 24 December 2020, Ms Drake commenced these Class 4 proceedings against Randwick City Council (the Council) seeking two declarations and costs. The proceedings arose from proposed development at 27 Adams Avenue, Malabar (the site). Ms Drake is a co‑owner of the site. The Council was the consent authority for the proposed development.

  2. The declaratory relief sought in the Summons was in the following terms:

1   A declaration that the development described in plans referred to in the Schedule One hereto in relation to land situated at 27 Adams Avenue, Malabar (“the Land”) is development for a “dual occupancy (attached)” within the meaning of that phrase in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“RLEP 2012”) and is development that is permissible with development consent granted thereunder.

2   A declaration that subdivision of the Land pursuant to the provisions of the Strata Schemes (Development) Act 2015 as set out in the proposed plan of subdivision referred to in Schedule 2 hereof is permissible with development consent granted pursuant to the RLEP 2012.

  1. It…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Drake v Randwick City Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drake v Randwick City Council was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute arose from the applicant's challenge to a decision made by Randwick City Council to deny an application for a development permit concerning a property located in the Bondi Beach locality. The applicant, Mr. Drake, sought the permit to modify the existing structure and use the land for commercial purposes, specifically intending to develop a beachfront restaurant. The Council rejected the application, citing concerns over the preservation of the area's character and the potential environmental impact.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision to deny the permit was lawful, rational, and supported by the relevant statutory provisions and policy frameworks. Secondly, the court needed to assess whether the Council adequately considered all relevant factors, particularly those related to the environmental impact and character preservation. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's proposal complied with the Local Environment Plan and other applicable planning controls.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It was determined that the Council's decision was lawful and rational. The court found that the Council had appropriately exercised its discretion under the planning legislation by considering the statutory objectives of character preservation and environmental protection. The applicant's proposal did not align with these objectives, particularly in the sensitive coastal zone of Bondi Beach. The court further held that the Council had properly assessed the environmental impact and adequately considered the character of the area, leading to the conclusion that the permit denial was justified. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [35]

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.