Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Middle Cove Investments (No 1) Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1051 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 26 October 2016, 08, 10, 15 November 2016, 3 February 2017 Date of orders: 07 February 2017 Decision date: 07 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed used development - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Middle Cove Investments (No 1) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
Mr J P Merlino, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/154425 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA2015/99 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed used development at 217 Eastern Valley Way, Middle Cove.
-
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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the amended plans set out in Condition (1) at page 4 of Annexure A.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
The applicant's request for an exception to the height development standard pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 is upheld.
Development application DA/2015/99 for the demolition of existing commercial/retail structure and construction of a part 3, part 4 storey shop top housing development including 8 residential apartments above a ground floor commercial suite with basement car parking and associated landscaping in accordance with the conditions in Annexure A.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
154425.16 Brown (C) (432 KB, pdf)
154425.16 Brown - Plans (1.67 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Middle Cove Investments (No 1) Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1051
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1051
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances. The court also needed to consider whether the Council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and provisions. The applicant argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and that it had failed to properly consider the relevant planning policies and provisions. The applicant submitted that the proposed development was consistent with the relevant planning policies and provisions and that the Council's decision to refuse the application was therefore unreasonable.
The court held that the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and provisions. The court found that the proposed development was not consistent with the relevant planning policies and provisions and that the Council's decision to refuse the application was therefore not unreasonable. The court held that the Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and provisions and that the applicant's arguments were without merit. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Council's decision to refuse the development application. The orders of the court included that the appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.