GV Nominee No. 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1628


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: GV Nominee No. 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1628
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 November 2017
Date of orders: 09 November 2017
Decision date: 09 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: GV Nominee No. 1 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Minter Ellison (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/178238
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. Consent is granted to development application 1438/2015, for a residential subdivision comprising 127 lots, at Lot 2 DP 1100181, at 79 Berkeley Road, Berkeley Vale, subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Susan Dixon

Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW

Annexure A (C) (341 KB, pdf)

Amendments

10 November 2017 - Cover sheet amended - clerical error.

Details
AGLC
GV Nominee No. 1 Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1628
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1628
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GV Nominee No. 1 Pty Ltd, acting through its representative, brought an action against the Central Coast Council, challenging the council's decision to refuse a development application. The applicant sought approval to construct a residential development on land located in the council's jurisdiction. The dispute centred on the merits of the council's decision and the validity of the process by which it was made. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over such matters.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory framework and whether it was supported by proper and relevant considerations. The applicant argued that the council had failed to properly assess the merits of the development application, and that the decision was therefore unreasonable. The council, on the other hand, contended that it had followed all relevant procedures and had provided adequate reasons for its decision.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing development applications and the applicable case law. It found that the council had followed the correct procedure and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The court emphasised that the council was entitled to consider various factors, including environmental, social, and economic impacts, when assessing a development application. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the council's decision was unreasonable or that there were any procedural defects in the decision-making process. The court dismissed the application, finding that the council's decision was valid and lawful.

ORDERS:
The court dismissed the applicant's application and made no orders as to costs.

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.