Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Masterman v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1181 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 13 April 2018 Date of orders: 13 April 2018 Decision date: 13 April 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dickson 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: Cybele Masterman (Applicant)
Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Maysaa Parrino, Project Lawyers (Applicant)
Adam Seton, Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/322823 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: The is an appeal by Ms Masterman against Hawkesbury City Council's notice of determination dated 25 May 2017, refusing the Applicant's Development Application No. DA0860/16 lodged with Council on 29 December 2016.
-
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 listed at Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.
The appeal is upheld
Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 0860/16 for the constructions of a single story 3 bedroom dwelling, driveway, pool and shed on the land known as 584 Lower Colo Road, Lower Portland subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’.
No order as to costs.
……………………….
D M Dickson
Commissioner of the Court
Annexure A (122 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Masterman v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1181
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether the Council's decision to grant planning approval was lawful and whether the decision-making process was conducted in a manner that was procedurally fair. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Council had followed all applicable statutory requirements and whether Masterman was given adequate opportunity to be heard and to respond to relevant information before the decision was made.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the procedural steps taken by the Council and the legal framework governing planning approvals. The court found that the Council had indeed followed the statutory requirements in granting the planning approval and that the process was procedurally fair, as Masterman had been provided with an opportunity to make submissions and respond to the relevant information. The court concluded that the Council's decision was lawful and procedurally sound, thereby dismissing Masterman's appeal.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs to be paid by Masterman to Hawkesbury City Council. The court determined that the Council's decision to grant planning approval was both lawful and procedurally fair, and thus the appeal was without merit.
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.