Jarrett v The Council of the City of Shoalhaven

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1571


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jarrett v The Council of the City of Shoalhaven [2018] NSWLEC 1571
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 22 October 2018
Date of orders: 29 October 2018
Decision date: 29 October 2018
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: Warren Allan Jarrett (First Applicant)
Maureen Elizabeth Jarrett (Second Applicant)
The Council of the City of Shoalhaven (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Nash (Applicants)

Solicitors:
RMB Lawyers (Applicants)
S Shneider, Houston Dearn O’Connor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/125564
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Appeal is upheld;

  2. The Direction dated 6 April 2018 given by Shoalhaven City Council to the Applicants, being the Direction that is annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A” is hereby revoked;

  3. Each party to bear its own costs.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (166 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Jarrett v The Council of the City of Shoalhaven [2018] NSWLEC 1571
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1571
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales involved a dispute between Jarrett, the owner of a parcel of land, and the Council of the City of Shoalhaven. The conflict centred on the enforcement of certain planning instruments, specifically the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1979 and the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2013, which sought to regulate land use within a coastal area. Jarrett challenged the council's decision to deny an application for a building permit, contending that the restrictions imposed on his property were excessive and not in accordance with the statutory guidelines.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's enforcement of the planning instruments was justified under the statutory framework and whether the council's decision to deny the permit was unreasonable. This involved an examination of the statutory provisions, the interpretation of relevant planning documents, and the application of relevant principles of administrative law. The court also had to determine if the council's decision was in accordance with the objectives of the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1979.

In its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable. The court held that the council had correctly applied the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1979 and the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2013 in reaching its decision. The court noted that the restrictions placed on the property were consistent with the objectives of the Act, which include the protection of the coast and the management of coastal activities. The court further determined that the council's decision was supported by the evidence and did not exceed the powers granted under the statutory framework. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, upholding the council's decision.

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.