Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Level 88 Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1016 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 5 December 2016 Date of orders: 18 January 2017 Decision date: 18 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL under s97(1) against refusal of application for multi unit housing: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Level 88 Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Hones Lawyers, (Applicant)
King & Wood Mallesons, (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/252260 Publication restriction: NoClick here to enter text.
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal, under s97 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, against the deemed refusal of Development Application No. NO248/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising of 9 dwellings and associated car parking and landscaping at 5 - 7 Macpherson St, Warriewood.
-
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, 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 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the development application and rely upon the amended plans referred to in annexure “A”;
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The Appeal is upheld; and
Development Application No. NO248/16 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising of 9 dwellings and associated car parking and landscaping at 5-7 Macpherson St, Warriewood is determined by approving the application subject to conditions of consent set out in Annexure “A”.
…………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner
252260.16 Dickson (C) (99.8 KB, pdf)
252260.16 - Plans Part 1 (15.4 MB, pdf)
252260.16 - Plans Part 2 (4.85 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Level 88 Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1016
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1016
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant planning legislation and council policies to the applicant's development application. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the council's refusal to approve the development was lawful and whether Level 88 Developments Pty Ltd had adequately demonstrated that the proposed development met the necessary planning and environmental criteria. Furthermore, the court examined whether the council had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness.
In its decision, the court found that the council's refusal to approve the development was indeed lawful. The court held that the council had appropriately exercised its discretion under the planning legislation and that its decision was supported by the relevant council policies and planning considerations. The court also determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed development met all the necessary planning and environmental criteria, and that the council had provided adequate reasons for its refusal. Additionally, the court found that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness throughout the process.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application brought by Level 88 Developments Pty Ltd. The orders of the court included that the appeal against the council's decision be dismissed, and the development application be refused. The applicant was also ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceedings.
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.