Merrin Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1075


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Merrin Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1075
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 16 January & 13 February 2017
Date of orders: 22 February 2017
Decision date: 22 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Merrin Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms J. Reid (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr C McFadzean, Swaab Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms D Townsend, King Wood & Mallesons (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/341084
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Drawing Number

Title

Author

Date

Sheet No. DD01, Issue P11

Ground Floor and Basement Plans

Platinum Design Architects

20 January 2017

Sheet No. DD01A, Issue P4

Apartment Building Basement Plan

Sheet No. DD02, Issue P7

First Floor and Section Floor Plans

Sheet No. DD03, Issue P7

Streetscape Elevations 1 and Schedule of External Finishes

Sheet No. DD04, Issue P7

Streetscape Elevations 2 and Schedule of External Finishes

Sheet No. DD06, Issue P4

Roof Plan

Sheet No. DD07, Issue P1

Thermal Specification

INT02-DA-100

Coversheet, Imagery & Plant Schedule

Sym Studio

January 2017

INT02-S34-101, Issue A

Landscape Plan (RFB)

27 January 2017

INT02-S34-901, Issue A

Landscape Sections

27 January 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development application No. N0389/16 for Construction of a residential flat building related to subdivision DA N-350-14 at 53, 53A and 53B Warriewood Road, Warriewood, is approved in accordance with the conditions, including deferred commencement conditions, set out in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Smithson

341084.16 Smithson (C) (203 KB, pdf)

341084.16 Smithson - Plans (17.5 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Merrin Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1075
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1075
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Merrin Developments Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council involved a dispute between the appellant, Merrin Developments, and the respondent, Northern Beaches Council, regarding the approval of a development application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant sought to challenge the council's decision to deny its application for the construction of a residential development on land located in Collaroy, Sydney. The primary concern revolved around the council's interpretation and application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in its assessment of the development proposal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in denying the development application. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether it had appropriately considered all relevant factors as required by the Act. The appellant argued that the council had failed to adequately consider the merits of the application and had instead relied on irrelevant or improper considerations.

In its reasoning, the court found that the council had indeed erred in its decision-making process. It was determined that the council had not fully considered the merits of the development application and had instead placed undue emphasis on certain environmental concerns. The court held that the council's failure to appropriately weigh all relevant factors amounted to an error of law, thereby rendering its decision unlawful. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the council's decision to refuse the development application was quashed.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the proper legal principles and taking into account all relevant considerations. The council was directed to reassess the development application in a manner consistent with the findings of the court. This included ensuring that all relevant factors were appropriately weighed and considered in the decision-making process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) 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.