Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1011


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 1011
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 November, 1 & 20 December 2017
Date of orders: 12 January 2018
Decision date: 12 January 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Woollahra Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Jaku Legal (Applicant)
Mr S Simington, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/202008 & 2017/202019
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

In appeal No. 2017/202008:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Modification Application No. 33/2015/2 in accordance with the plans and documents specified in condition A.3(a) of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification Application No. 33/2015/2 to modify Development Consent No. DA33/2015 to facilitate works at roof level and level two of the Light Brigade Hotel, located at 2A Oxford Street, Woollahra (Lot 1 DP 178745 and Lot 1 DP176198), in accordance with the plans identified in order (1), is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure ‘A’.

  4. As a consequence of order (3), Development Consent No. DA33/2015 is now subject to the consolidated, modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure ‘B’.

In appeal No. 2017/202019:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend Building Certificate Application No. 24/2016 to be in respect of the works as proposed by the plans and documents specified in condition A.3(a) of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. In accordance with section 149D(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, determination of Building Certificate Application No. 24/2016 is deferred.

  3. The Court directs that once the works identified as proposed by the plans and documents specified in condition A.3(a) of Annexure ‘A’ are carried out in accordance with Development Consent No. DA33/2015 as modified, the Respondent is to issue a building certificate in respect of those works.

……………………………

Senior Commissioner Martin

Annexure A & Annexure B(C)

Annexure C (Plans)

Amendments

12 January 2018 - Orders rearranged to accurately reflect the terms of the as-filed s34 agreement.

15 January 2018 - Order (3) amended to correctly reference order (1).

Details
AGLC
Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 1011
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1011
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council, the parties were Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Woollahra Council, the respondent. The dispute arose from a decision by Woollahra Council to refuse an application by Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd for a change of use permit for a property located in Darling Point. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant contested the council's refusal, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and should be overturned in favour of granting the permit.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Woollahra Council's decision to refuse the permit was lawful, rational, and in accordance with the applicable planning laws and policies. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the refusal was based on an unreasonable application of the planning framework, and whether the decision-making process complied with the statutory requirements for making such decisions. Additionally, the court examined whether the Woollahra Council adequately considered relevant planning policies and whether there was any bias or procedural error in the decision-making process.

The court found that the Woollahra Council's decision was not unreasonable. It concluded that the council had properly applied the planning laws and policies in reaching its decision. The court highlighted that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the council had appropriately balanced the competing interests of the parties. The reasoning included an analysis of the planning framework, the evidence presented, and the council's consideration of relevant policies. The court also determined that there was no procedural error or bias that would invalidate the decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's decision to refuse the change of use permit was upheld.

The court's final orders confirmed the dismissal of the appeal. Light Brigade Properties Pty Ltd's application for a change of use permit was denied, and the decision of Woollahra Council was upheld as lawful and reasonable. The council was not required to grant the permit, and no further orders were made in relation to the matter.

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.