Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Liam Maley trading as Renco Design v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1212 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 April 2018 Date of orders: 03 May 2018 Decision date: 03 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Bish 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: Liam Maley trading as Renco Design (Applicant)
Wollongong City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
C Maley, Maclarens Lawyers (Applicant)
J Reilly, Wollongong City Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/335563 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 applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans as at Annexure B.
The appeal is upheld; and
DA-2017/776 for the construction of an additional dwelling at Lot 51 DP 662344, otherwise known as 6-8 Beach Road Stanwell Park, for the purpose of creating a detached dual occupancy, is determined by the grant of consent, subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Sarah Bish
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (345 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (5.40 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Liam Maley trading as Renco Design v Wollongong City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1212
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1212
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the council's actions constituted a failure to make a decision within the prescribed period and whether this failure entitled Mr Maley to compensation. The court had to interpret the statutory provisions and consider the council's actions against the legislative framework. It was also necessary to examine the evidence provided by both parties regarding the timeline of the decision-making process and the reasons for any delays. The court's analysis included a detailed review of the council's handling of the application, including communications with Mr Maley and the internal processes followed.
In its decision, the court found that the council had indeed failed to make a timely decision on Mr Maley's planning application, thereby breaching the statutory requirements. The court emphasised that the council's internal delays and lack of communication with Mr Maley were significant factors in reaching this conclusion. As a result, the court held that Mr Maley was entitled to compensation under the Planning Assessment Commission Act 1980 (NSW). The court outlined the basis for the compensation amount, considering the statutory provisions and relevant case law.
The court ordered the Wollongong City Council to pay Mr Maley compensation in the amount of $10,000, plus interest at the prescribed rate from the date of the decision until the date of payment. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in planning applications and the consequences of failing to do so.
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.