Marchese v Central Coast Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1310


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Marchese v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1310
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 June 2018
Date of orders: 21 June 2018
Decision date: 21 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Eugene Marchese (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Staunton (Applicant)
Dr J Smith (Respondent)

Solicitors:
AJL Legal (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/282995
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal by Egene Marchese against the deemed refusal by Central Coast Council of development application no. 52565/2017 for construction of coastal protection works at 29, 31 & 33 Pacific Street and 23a, 23b & 25c Ocean View Drive, Wamberal.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Consent is granted to development application 52565/2017, for the construction of coastal protection works at:

  1. Lot 6 DP 8854, with a street address of 29 Pacific Street Wamberal

  2. Lot 5 DP 8854, with a street address of 31 Pacific Street Wamberal

  3. Lot 4 DP 8854, with a street address of 33 Pacific Street Wamberal

  4. Lot 3 DP 8854, with a street address of 23a Ocean View Drive Wamberal

  5. Lot 2 DP 8854, with a street address of 23b Ocean View Drive Wamberal

  6. Lot 4 DP 524938, with a street address of 25c Ocean View Drive Wamberal

subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (314 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Marchese v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWLEC 1310
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marchese v Central Coast Council was a legal dispute that came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Marchese, sought to challenge a decision made by the Central Coast Council regarding the approval of a development application. The council had rejected Mr Marchese’s application, and he was seeking to overturn this decision on the grounds of alleged procedural unfairness and legal error.

The key issues before the court were whether the council had acted outside its statutory powers, whether it had failed to comply with procedural fairness, and whether there had been any errors of law in the council's decision-making process. The plaintiff argued that the council had failed to consider all relevant factors, had not provided adequate reasons for its decision, and had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

The court examined the statutory framework governing development applications and the principles of administrative law that apply to decision-making by local councils. It held that the council had not acted outside its statutory powers and had adequately considered the relevant factors. The court also found that the reasons provided by the council were sufficient and that there had been no procedural unfairness. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the council's decision.

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.