Masterman v Hawkesbury City Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1181


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

  1. 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.

  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 s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on amended plans listed at Condition 1 of Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The appeal is upheld

  3. 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’.

  4. No order as to costs.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (122 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Masterman v Hawkesbury City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1181
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Masterman v Hawkesbury City Council, the plaintiff, Masterman, sought to appeal a decision by the Hawkesbury City Council regarding the planning approval for a proposed development on their property. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with resolving the dispute over the validity of the Council's decision and the procedural fairness with which it was made.

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.