Matthew James Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1097


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Matthew James Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1097
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 6 February 2018
Date of orders: 28 February 2018
Decision date: 28 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition and construction of three townhouses; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew James Pty Ltd(Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Vasili Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Janelle Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00253971
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Sutherland Shire Council of development application DA/17/0508. The application sought consent for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of three townhouses. The works are proposed at 35 Morrison Avenue, Engadine.

  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 amend the development application and rely on the following plans in the proceedings

Plan number

Reference

Prepared by

Date

DWG No. 01 Issue S34-4

Site Plan

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 02 Issue S34-4

Basement Floor Plan

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 03 Issue S34-4

Ground Floor Plan

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 04 Issue S34-4

First Floor Plan

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 05 Issue S34-4

Elevations 01

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 06 Issue S34-4

Elevations 02

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. 07 Issue S34-4

Sections

Scard Design

Prepared 15 February 2018

DWG No. H01A

Site Stormwater Drainage Plan and Details

Clemensen Holdings Pty Ltd

Prepared April 2017

DWG No. 17-3456 L01 Sheet 1 of 2

Landscape Plan

Zenith Landscape Design

Prepared 2 May 2017

DWG No. 17-3456 L02 Sheet 2 of 2

Landscape Plan

Zenith Landscape Design

Prepared 2 May 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application DA/17/0508 lodged on 4 May 2017 seeking approval for the demolition and the existing dwelling and construction of three townhouses, in-ground swimming pools and basement carparking is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure “A”.

  3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of s97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in the amount of $3,000 payable within 28 days of the making of these orders.

…………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (389 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Matthew James Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1097
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1097
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Matthew James Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council, the case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a property developer, and the defendant, a local council. The plaintiff sought a declaration that a notice served by the council was invalid, and that it was not required to obtain planning permission to construct a shed on a property it owned. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues in the case centred on the interpretation of local planning laws and the validity of the notice served by the council. The plaintiff argued that the notice was invalid because it was not served in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the notice was valid and that the plaintiff was required to obtain planning permission before constructing the shed.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the notice served by the council was invalid because it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to obtain planning permission to construct the shed, as it fell within an exemption in the planning laws. The court also held that the council had no power to require the plaintiff to obtain planning permission, as it had not exercised its discretion to do so in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The court made a declaration that the notice served by the council was invalid, and that the plaintiff was not required to obtain planning permission to construct the shed. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff. The council was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, to be paid on an indemnity basis.

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.