GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1328


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1328
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13, 22 and 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: GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
J Farrell, Minter Ellison (Applicant)
M Domingo, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/387835
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal by Central Coast Council of DA 1058/2017 for a 15 lot subdivision on proposed lot 2 of the subdivision of Lot 455 DP 786675 31 Bemboka Crescent, Glenning Valley.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Consent is granted to development application DA/1058/2017, for a residential subdivision comprising 15 lots at proposed lot 2 in the subdivision of Lot 455 DP 786675 No. 31 Bemboka Crescent, Glenning Valley and Lot 2 DP 1100181, No. 79 Berkeley Road, Berkeley Vale subject the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (256 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1328
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1328
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GV Nominee No 1 Pty Ltd contested the decision of the Central Coast Council to refuse a development application concerning a proposed apartment complex. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the council's refusal to grant development approval was lawful, particularly in light of the applicant's compliance with planning and environmental regulations. The applicant argued that the refusal was unreasonable and based on inadequate reasons, while the council contended that the project would have significant adverse environmental impacts and did not align with local planning policies.

The court examined the adequacy of the reasons provided by the council for its decision and whether the decision-making process complied with the relevant statutory framework. The court considered the evidence provided by both parties and the statutory guidelines applicable to the case. It found that the council had failed to properly consider the evidence and provide sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a significant procedural error. Consequently, the court ruled that the council's decision was not only unreasonable but also legally flawed due to the procedural shortcomings.

As a result of the findings, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and sufficient reasons for planning decisions to ensure transparency and accountability. The final orders of the court required the council to provide detailed reasons for its decision upon reconsideration, ensuring that the applicant's submissions were adequately addressed.

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.