Graeme Spackman v Lachlan Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1524


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Graeme Spackman v Lachlan Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1524
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 September 2017
Date of orders: 22 September 2017
Decision date: 22 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Graeme Spackman (Applicant)
Lachlan Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P Crennan, McIntosh Mc Phillamy & Co. Solicitors (Applicant)
Mr J Griffiths, Moray & Agnew (Newcastle) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/148389
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to file the amended plan identified as Site Plan September 2017.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Consent is granted to development application 2016/0029 for a dwelling, detached shed and boundary fence on Lot 31 Deposited Plan 807084 Wells Street Curlew Waters subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.

……………………….

Commissioner Chilcott

Annexure A (C) (242 KB, pdf)

Amendments

09 October 2017 - Correction to Date of Orders

Details
AGLC
Graeme Spackman v Lachlan Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1524
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1524
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Graeme Spackman initiated proceedings against Lachlan Shire Council, bringing a dispute before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The case revolved around the Council's refusal to grant Mr Spackman a permit to develop land he owned in the Lachlan Shire. Mr Spackman claimed that the Council's refusal was unlawful and sought judicial review of the decision. The central issue was whether the Council had acted lawfully and reasonably in denying the development permit, considering the statutory criteria and relevant planning policies.

The court examined the statutory framework governing development permits, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the relevant local environmental plan. It assessed whether the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the statutory criteria and whether the decision was rational and not arbitrary or capricious. The court also considered whether the Council had appropriately exercised its discretion under the Act.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court found that the Council had acted lawfully in denying the development permit. The Council's decision was based on a thorough and proper consideration of the statutory criteria and relevant planning policies. The court held that the Council had exercised its discretion reasonably and that the decision was not unlawful or irrational. Consequently, Mr Spackman's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court's final orders included dismissing Mr Spackman's application for judicial review and confirming the Council's decision to deny the development permit. Additionally, the court ordered that Mr Spackman bear the costs of the proceedings.

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.