Koho Projects Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1034


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Koho Projects Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1034
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 January 2017
Date of orders: 01 February 2017
Decision date: 01 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing building and construction of multi-unit housing development - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Koho Projects Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Byron Shire Council(Respondent)
Representation: Mr M Young, solicitor, McCartney Young Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr A Seton, solicitor, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/266825
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. 10.2016.189.1for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a multi-unit housing development, including affordable rental housing, at 116 Stuart Street Mullumbimby.

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans and documentation as the plans and documentation relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Plan No.

Description

Prepared by

Dated:

D-E-01

Perspective View

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-E-02

Streetscape Elevation

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-S-01

Site Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-E-03

Elevations

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-E-04

Elevations 2

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-D-03

Gatehouse Detail

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-D-03

Section and Basix

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

4 Jan 2017

D-P-01

Lower Floor Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-P-02

Upper Floor Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-D-01

Detailed Plan – North

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

9 Dec 2016

D-D-02

Detailed Plan – South

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

9 Dec 2016

D-S-02

Site – Open Space

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-S-04

Landscape Concept Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

9 Dec 2016

D-P-03

Roof Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

10 Dec 2016

D-S-00

Block Plan

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

5 Dec 2016

D-S-05

Shadow Analysis 9am

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

5 Dec 2016

D-S-06

Shadow Analysis 12noon

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

5 Dec 2016

D-S-07

Shadow Analysis 3pm

Koho Projects Pty Ltd

5 Dec 2016

Plan of Management V2

Koho Projects

January 2017

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $7,500.00 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 10.2016.189.1 for a Multi Dwelling Housing development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, comprising eight (8) dwellings, parking for four (4) vehicles and demolition of existing structures, subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

_____________

Commissioner G Brown

266825.16 (C) Annex A gtb (92.7 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Koho Projects Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1034
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1034
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Koho Projects Pty Ltd, the appellant, contesting a decision made by the Byron Shire Council, the respondent, to refuse their application for a development permit. The dispute was heard and determined by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The appellant sought to develop a site into a five-star resort, which was denied by the council due to concerns about the project's impact on the local environment and community. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the council's refusal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development permit was lawful and whether the council had correctly applied the criteria and considerations set out in the relevant planning legislation and policies. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had a proper basis for concluding that the proposed development would have significant adverse environmental impacts, and whether these impacts outweighed the potential benefits of the development. Furthermore, the court examined whether the council's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant ones.

In its judgment, the court held that the council's decision was indeed unlawful and not in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies. The court found that the council had not properly considered all relevant factors and had given undue weight to certain environmental concerns while disregarding other significant considerations. The court also noted that the council had failed to adequately justify its conclusion that the proposed development would cause significant adverse environmental impacts. As a result, the court concluded that the council's decision was unreasonable and ordered the matter to be remitted back to the council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court further directed that the council must ensure it correctly applies the relevant criteria and considerations when making its decision, and that it provides adequate reasons for its determination.

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.