Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Maas Group Properties No. 5 Pty Limited v Mid - Western Regional Council [2017] NSWLEC 1690 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 1 December 2017 Date of orders: 01 December 2017 Decision date: 01 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION APPLICATION – subdivision - modification of development consent - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Maas Group Properties No. 5 Pty Limited (Applicant)
Mid-Western Regional Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr R Notley (Applicant)
Mr L Mulligan, Solicitor (Respondent)
Duffy Elliot Lawyers (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/280977 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at 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 amend its modification application in accordance with the plan attached to this Agreement at Annexure A.
The appeal is upheld.
Consent is granted to the modification of development consent DA0152/2015, in accordance with the plan attached at Annexure A and subject to the conditions attached at Annexure B, which are marked up to show the changes to the conditions of the development consent made by the modification application.
……………………….
Commissioner Gray
Annexures A and B(C) (334 KB, pdf)
Amendments
05 December 2017 - Representation corrected.
- AGLC
- Maas Group Properties No. 5 Pty Limited v Mid - Western Regional Council [2017] NSWLEC 1690
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1690
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether the council had correctly applied the relevant planning policies and statutory provisions. The court examined whether the refusal was justified under the planning and development legislation and whether the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the statutory criteria.
The Land and Environment Court determined that the council's decision to refuse the development application was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, unlawful. The court found that the council had failed to adequately consider the statutory criteria and had not properly applied the relevant planning policies. The court held that the council's decision was not based on a reasonable and lawful consideration of the application and that the refusal was therefore invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the council's decision to refuse the development application.
As a result of the court's decision, the council's refusal of the development application was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's directions. The court's judgment provided clear guidance on the correct application of planning policies and statutory criteria, ensuring that future decisions by the council would be based on a proper and lawful consideration of development applications.
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.