Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: La Vie Developments Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1255 Hearing dates: Conciliation conferences on 29 May and 9 June 2020 Date of orders: 16 June 2020 Decision date: 16 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Clay AC Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Modification Application No. DA-2017/1711/D, to modify Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 (“Development Consent”), relating to Lot 400 in Deposited Plan 1252763, is approved such that the Development Consent is modified as set out at Annexure A.
(3) The Court notes that as a consequence of Order 2, Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.Catchwords: MODIFICATION – subdivision and seniors housing – variation in development contributions – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: La Vie Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Jaku (Solicitor) (Applicant)
T Robertson SC (Respondent)
Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/299678 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 8.9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) against the refusal by the Respondent of an application to modify development consent (DA-2017/1711/D) for Subdivision and Seniors housing at Lot 400 Deposited Plan 1252763 known as 8 Goolagong Street, Avondale (the site).
-
The modification sought is to vary pursuant to s 7.13(3) of the EP&A Act the Development Contributions imposed pursuant to s 7.11 of the EP&A Act.
-
On 29 May 2020 I presided over a conciliation conference between the parties pursuant to s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act).
-
At the conciliation conference, the parties reached agreement in principle as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The proposed decision was to modify the development consent in the manner described below.
-
On 9 June 2020 the parties lodged an agreement pursuant to s 34 of the LEC Act.
-
Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement if the proposed decision the subject of the agreement is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions.
-
The parties’ agreement involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.55(1A) and s 7.13(3) of the EP&A Act to grant the application to modify the development consent.
-
I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act because:
the Court has power on appeal pursuant to s 7.13(3) of the EP&A Act to impose a contribution otherwise than in accordance with a relevant contributions plan;
the modification involves no environmental impact thereby in satisfaction of s 4.55(1A) of the EP&A Act.
-
As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.
-
The parties have not raised and I am not aware of any jurisdictional impediment to the making of these orders. Further, I was not required to make, and have not made, any assessment of the merits of the modification application against the discretionary matters that arise pursuant to an assessment under s 4.15 of the EP&A Act.
-
The Court orders that:
The appeal is upheld.
Modification Application No. DA-2017/1711/D, to modify Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 (“Development Consent”), relating to Lot 400 in Deposited Plan 1252763, is approved such that the Development Consent is modified as set out at Annexure A.
The Court notes that as a consequence of Order 2, Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.
…………………………
P Clay
Acting Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (177542, pdf)
Annexure B (978209, pdf)
**********
- AGLC
- La Vie Developments Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1255
- Case
- [2020] NSWLEC 1255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council’s decision to refuse the modification application was lawful and whether the company’s proposal complied with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The court had to examine whether the refusal was based on an error of law, was unreasonable, or failed to take into account a relevant consideration. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the proposed modifications aligned with the objectives of the relevant planning scheme and whether they were consistent with the original development consent.
The court found that the council's decision to refuse the modification application was flawed. It concluded that the council did not adequately consider certain planning policies and the overall objectives of the local planning scheme. The court found that the refusal was unreasonable and that the proposed modifications were consistent with the original development consent and the planning scheme. Therefore, the court upheld the appeal and approved the modification application, subject to certain conditions. These conditions were designed to ensure that the development would still comply with planning objectives and would not adversely affect the surrounding environment or community.
As a result of the court’s decision, the modification application was approved, and the development consent was modified accordingly. The court set out detailed conditions in annexures that the development consent must now comply with, ensuring that the development would proceed in a manner consistent with planning laws and objectives. The court’s decision provided clarity and a path forward for the company to proceed with the proposed development, subject to the modified conditions.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Modification Application No. DA-2017/1711/D, to modify Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 (“Development Consent”), relating to Lot 400 in Deposited Plan 1252763, is approved such that the Development Consent is modified as set out at Annexure A.
(3) The Court notes that as a consequence of Order 2, Development Consent No. D/2017/1711 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure B.
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.