MBC Property Sydney Nominees Pty Ltd ATF MBC Property Sydney Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1104


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MBC Property Sydney Nominees Pty Ltd ATF MBC Property Sydney Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1104
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 23 February, 8 March 2016
Date of orders: 11 March 2016
Decision date: 11 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: construction of townhouse development; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: MBC Property Sydney Nominees Pty Ltd ATF MBC Property Sydney Unit Trust (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Mr G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Ms J Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):11209 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. DA15/1385 construction of 9 townhouse development with basement car parking at 12-16 Durbar Avenue, Kirrawee.

  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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

G T Brown

Commissioner

11209 of 2015 - Order (8.02 KB, pdf)

11209 of 2015 - Annexure A (110 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
MBC Property Sydney Nominees Pty Ltd ATF MBC Property Sydney Unit Trust v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1104
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by MBC Property Sydney Nominees Pty Ltd ATF MBC Property Sydney Unit Trust against the Sutherland Shire Council. The dispute centred on the Council's decision to reject the appellant's application for a development approval concerning a property at Sylvania Heights. The appellant sought to develop the property, which included the construction of a multi-level building with associated facilities. The primary issue was whether the Sutherland Shire Council had the power to reject the development application on the basis that the proposed development did not comply with the local environment plan.

The court was required to determine the scope of the Council's powers under the relevant planning legislation to reject a development application on grounds of non-compliance with a local environment plan. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the rejection was lawful and if the Council had correctly interpreted and applied the local environment plan provisions. The appellant argued that the Council had overstepped its authority by rejecting the application on the basis of non-compliance, which they contended should have been addressed through conditions attached to the approval rather than outright rejection.

The court held that the Sutherland Shire Council had the authority to reject the development application if it found that the proposal did not comply with the local environment plan. The court found that the Council had correctly interpreted the plan and had the discretion to reject applications that did not align with the objectives and requirements of the plan. The court also noted that the rejection was not an arbitrary exercise of power but was based on a reasonable interpretation of the local environment plan. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Council's decision to reject the development application was upheld. The court's decision affirmed the Council's authority to ensure that developments are in accordance with local planning objectives.

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.