Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Modog Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1417 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 July 2017 Date of orders: 02 August 2017 Decision date: 02 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: MODIFICATION: application to modify approval for housing for seniors or people with a disability - conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Modog Pty Limited (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms J Reid, barrister (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/56233 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of Modification Application No. DA MOD2016/0327 that seeks to modify the approval of a housing for seniors or people with a disability at 36 Wyndora Avenue, Freshwater NSW 2096
-
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:
The Applicant is granted leave to amend the section 96 modification application by substituting the following amended plans and documents relied on for the purpose of the section 96 application:
Architectural plans prepared by Max Wessels, project no. 2313:
Drawing Number S96/2, amendment D dated 23 May 2017;
Drawing Number S96/4, amendment E dated 1 June 2017.
Stormwater plans prepared by Henry & Hymas:
Drawing number 14895_CC_C000 Rev 04 dated 17 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C100 Rev 08 dated 19 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C110 Rev 01 (Section) dated 18 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C101 Rev 10 dated 19 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C200 Rev 02 dated 29 May 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_SE01 Rev 02 dated 29 May 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_SE02 Rev 02 dated 29 May 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C102 Rev 04 dated 1 June 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C201 Rev 03 dated 18 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C202 Rev 02 dated 18 July 2017
Drawing number 14895_CC_C203 Rev 01 dated 1 June 2017
The appeal is upheld.
Modification application No. DA MOD2016/0327 for modification of a proposed housing for seniors or people with a disability at 36 Wyndora Avenue, Freshwater is approved subject to the consolidated set of conditions contained in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner G Brown
56233.17 Brown (C) (403 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Modog Pty Limited v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1417
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1417
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court encompassed whether the council had the authority to impose certain conditions on the developer's project and whether those conditions were consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Protection Act. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the council's actions in enforcing these conditions were lawful and whether the developer had fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Act.
The court thoroughly examined the statutory framework and relevant case law to address the legal questions. It concluded that the council's imposition of conditions was in line with the powers granted under the Coastal Protection Act, and these conditions were necessary to ensure the protection of the coastline. The court further determined that the council's enforcement actions were lawful, as the developer had not adequately complied with its statutory duties. The court found that the developer's failure to adhere to the specified conditions warranted the council's enforcement actions.
In light of the findings, the court ordered the developer to comply with the council's conditions within a specified timeframe. The court also directed the developer to undertake additional measures to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts caused by the non-compliance. The orders were aimed at ensuring that the developer fulfilled its obligations under the Coastal Protection Act and that the coastal protection measures were effectively implemented.
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.