Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1324 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 29 June 2018 Date of orders: 29 June 2018 Decision date: 29 June 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See [5] below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
M Young, McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)
C Rose, Swaab Attorneys (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/72546 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Dromore Properties Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal by Byron Shire Council of the construction of multi-dwelling housing comprising three (3) dwellings, alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and strata subdivision to create two (2) strata lots including a vacant development lot at 57 Carlyle Street, Byron Bay.
-
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the plan, a copy of which is at Annexure 'A':
Plan No.
Description
Prepared by
Dated:
DA.02 / D
Proposed Works + Subdivision Plan
Those Architects
7/5/18
The appeal is upheld.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs under section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 agreed in the sum of $4,000 and payable within 28 days of the date of orders being made by the Court.
Development Application No. 10.2017.686.1 for alterations to an existing dwelling house and the subdivision of two lots to create two strata lots at Lot 14 Sec 30 DP 758207 and Lot 2 DP 401710 known as 57 Carlyle Street, Byron Bay be approved, subject to the conditions in Annexure 'B'.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (1.46 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (108 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1324
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the proper application of the relevant statutory provisions and whether the council had adhered to the principles of administrative law, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and the consideration of relevant matters. The primary legal issue was whether the council had applied its mind to the statutory criteria for granting consent and whether the refusal was based on evidence and relevant considerations. The court examined the statutory framework under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), focusing on the criteria that the council must consider in deciding applications for subdivision.
The court found that the council had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria and had acted without proper application of mind. It was held that the council's refusal was not based on evidence and relevant considerations. The court concluded that the council's decision was not rational and had not been made in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing the council to properly apply its mind to the statutory criteria. The orders included a declaration that the council's decision was invalid, and the matter was remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [5] 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.