Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lema v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1191 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 April 2018 Date of orders: 19 April 2018 Decision date: 19 April 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Walsh 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: Peter Lema (First Applicant)
Tracey Denise Mitchell (Second Applicant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton, barrister (Applicant)
Mr Christopher Shaw, solicitor (Respondent)
B Bilinsky & Co (Applicant)
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/307994 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The clause 4.6 objection to the minimum lot size in clause 4.1 of the Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010 contained in the Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by LandTeam dated 10 November 2016 is upheld.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 16/1322 for the subdivision of lot 61 in deposited plan 882829 into 3 lots at 7 Huxley Street, Mittagong is approved subject to the conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Peter Walsh
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (167 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Lema v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1191
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1191
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the local planning instrument, specifically regarding the permitted use of the land and the conditions attached to any development approval. Lema argued that the Council's refusal to grant approval for his proposed development was unreasonable and not in accordance with the relevant planning policies and legislative framework. Conversely, the Council contended that the proposed development did not align with the designated land use and environmental protections.
In its decision, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the proposed development, the applicable planning policies, and the statutory criteria for development approval. The court found that the proposed development did not comply with the relevant planning instrument and would have adverse environmental impacts. The court concluded that the Council's decision to refuse approval was reasonable and lawful. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to planning policies and environmental considerations in development decisions.
Consequently, the court dismissed Lema's appeal and affirmed the Council's decision to deny approval for the proposed development. The court's decision underscored the necessity for developers to align their proposals with applicable planning policies and environmental protections.
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.