Miller v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1126


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miller v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1126
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 9 March 2018
Date of orders: 09 March 2018
Decision date: 09 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 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: Chelsea Miller (1st Applicant)
Gabriel Miller (2nd Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Tony Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicants)
Eskil Julliard, Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/354500
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal seeking to modify a Court granted consent, proceedings 10411 of 2010, as modified by Council in N0051/09/S96/1 in 2012 and as modified by the Court in proceedings 10792 of 2014, for subdivision of two (2) lots into four (4) lots. The subdivision is proposed at 232-234 Barrenjoey Road, Newport.

  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 application is upheld.

  2. Pursuant to section 96(8) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the development consent granted by the Court in proceedings 10411 of 2010, as modified by Council in N0051/09/S96/1 in 2012 and as modified by the Court in proceedings 10792 of 2014, for the subdivision of 2 lots into 4 lots at 232 and 234 Barrenjoey Road, Newport is modified in accordance with the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (125 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Miller v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1126
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Miller v Northern Beaches Council sought a declaration that a proposed development on land owned by the second plaintiff was exempt from planning approval under section 113(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The council opposed the application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether the proposed development constituted a "minor development" exempt from planning approval. The primary issue was whether the proposed development, which included the construction of a new house, a garage, and a carport, qualified as a minor development under section 113(1)(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs argued that the proposed works were minor in nature and did not significantly alter the character of the site or the surrounding area. The council contended that the development was not minor because it involved substantial construction works that would significantly alter the site and its surroundings.

The court considered the definition of "minor development" in the Act and relevant case law. It held that the proposed development did not qualify as a minor development because it involved substantial construction works that would significantly alter the site and its surroundings. The court noted that the proposed works were not minor in nature and would have a significant impact on the site and the surrounding area. The court also considered the purpose of the Act, which was to protect the environment and ensure that development was carried out in a sustainable and responsible manner. The court held that the proposed development did not meet the criteria for a minor development and was therefore not exempt from planning approval.

The court made a declaration that the proposed development was not exempt from planning approval under section 113(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The plaintiffs' application for a declaration was dismissed.

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.