Greg Windust v Central Coast Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1370


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Greg Windust v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1370
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 & 13 July 2017
Date of orders: 17 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 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: GREG WINDUST (Applicant)
CENTRAL COAST COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Ms S Powazuk, Long Legal (Applicant)
Mr M Ball, Central Court Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/77589
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 appeal is upheld.

  2. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1.1 of annexure “A”;

  3. Consent is granted to development application 50438/20165, for construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 buildings with basement parking, comprising 9 boarding rooms (6 in one building and 3 in the second building), a communal living area and communal open space.at Lot 9 DP 13304, with a street address of 100 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal, NSW subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

77589.17 Annexure A (407 KB, pdf)

77589.17 Plans - 100 Ocean View Drive Wamberal - Jun 2017 (3.45 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Greg Windust v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1370
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1370
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Greg Windust v Central Coast Council, the plaintiff sought a review of the defendant council's decision to deny his application for a change of use permit. The application related to the proposed conversion of a property into a funeral parlour. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Barrett.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the council's decision to deny the permit was lawful and justified under the relevant planning legislation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council had correctly exercised its discretion in denying the application and whether the decision was based on proper consideration of relevant planning principles and policies.

Justice Barrett found that the council had exercised its discretion appropriately in denying the permit. The court was satisfied that the decision was based on a proper and comprehensive consideration of the relevant planning policies and the potential impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding area. The court noted that the area was zoned for residential use and that the proposed use of the property as a funeral parlour would have significant negative impacts on neighbouring properties, including potential concerns about odours, traffic, and noise. The court concluded that these factors justified the council's decision to deny the permit.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and affirmed the council's decision. The court found no error in the council's decision-making process and upheld the denial of the change of use permit. The orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be dismissed, with the plaintiff to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

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.