Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Garling v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1512 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 and 9 August 2022 Date of orders: 20 September 2022 Decision date: 20 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Espinosa C Decision: The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld;
(2) Development consent no DA2016/0963 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent no DA2016/0963 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL – conditions of consent – modification of development consent – consideration of objector submissions - conciliation conference – agreement between the parties - orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.55, 8.9
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 34AA, 38, 39
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021
State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land
Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011, cll 2.3, 2.7, 6.1
Cases Cited: Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd v Westlime Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 75
Jon Garling v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 102
Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280
Texts Cited: Warringah Development Control Plan 2012
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jon Garling (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Reid (Applicant)
A Gough (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Storey & Gough Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 22/80407 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is a Class 1 Development Appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) being an appeal against the determination of modification application MOD2021/0235 seeking to modify or delete a number of conditions of development consent DA2016/0963 as modified by MOD2019/0253 (the Proposed Development) at 24 Lancaster Crescent Collaroy, legally described as Lot 3 Section 10 in Deposited Plan 11899 (the Site).
-
The case is about privacy and view impacts on adjacent neighbours.
-
The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34AA(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which has been held on 8 and 9 August 2022. I have presided over the conciliation conference.
-
The proceedings commenced onsite and the Court heard from adjacent neighbour objectors and also attended each of the neighbouring properties. One of the neighbours had a legal representative, Mr Peter Tomasetti SC, who spoke on their behalf and provided to the Court a folder containing their written submissions dated 8 August 2022 and documents referred to in those submissions (Objector’s Folder). A copy of the Objector’s Folder was not provided to the Respondent or the Applicant and the objector’s legal representative relied on s 39(4) of the LEC Act, but I think can also rely on s 38(2) of the LEC Act. I also note that within the Objector’s Folder at Tab 7 is a document titled Draft Second Respondent Statement of Facts and Contentions…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Garling v Northern Beaches 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 1512
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's refusal to grant development consent was unreasonable and whether the development application complied with relevant environmental and zoning regulations. The applicant argued that the council's decision was flawed and not supported by sufficient evidence, while the council maintained that the refusal was justified given the potential adverse environmental effects and zoning constraints.
In its judgment, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert reports on environmental impact and compliance with zoning laws. The court found that the council's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was unreasonable in several respects. The court held that the applicant's proposal could be modified to mitigate the environmental concerns raised by the council, and that such modifications would render the development application compliant with relevant regulations. Consequently, the court upheld the appeal and ordered that the development consent be modified in accordance with Annexure A, with the modified consent detailed in Annexure B.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
(1) The appeal is upheld;
(2) Development consent no DA2016/0963 is modified in the terms in Annexure A.
(3) Development consent no DA2016/0963 as modified by the Court is Annexure B.
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.