Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Morgan v Lane Cove Council (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 1472 Hearing dates: 9 May 2018 Date of orders: 09 May 2018 Decision date: 09 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Dixon SC Decision: Orders at [6]
Catchwords: ORDERS - joint application to set aside the Court’s orders to allow for further evidence and submissions in respect of development applications for dwelling house and subdivision - in respect of appropriate conditions of consent Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Category: Principal judgment Parties: June Morgan (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr J Smith (Respondent)
J Morgan, litigant in person (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/63578 and 2017/211667 Publication restriction: No
Ex Tempore Judgment
-
Before the Court are two (2) Notices of Motion filed by Ms Morgan, the applicant. They are dated April 2018 and 2 May 2018.
-
Dr Smith appears for the respondent Council and the applicant is self-represented.
-
The parties have had opportunity to address the Court in respect of the two Notices of Motion and discussed a course of action which they agree results in a resolution of the applicant’s issues and concerns agitated today. Consequently, the Notices of Motion are no longer pressed by the applicant in the terms set out as they do not affect the agreed outcome now ultimately sought by the parties.
-
Instead, there is now a joint application by the parties for the Court to set aside the orders made in March 2018 and December 2017, pursuant to r 36.15(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The rule states:
(2) A judgment or order of the court in any proceedings may be set aside by order of the court if the parties to the proceedings consent.
-
That said, I note the reasons for judgment in respect of the proceedings and handed down on 1 December 2017 that development consent ought be granted to DA170/2016 for subdivision of land at 7 Dettmann Avenue, Longueville into two (2) Torrens Title allotments and development application DA213/2016 for the construction of a three storey dwelling and access driveway on Lot 2 at 7 Dettmann Avenue, Longueville subject to that finding and the imposition of appropriate conditions of consent.
-
As such, the Court has power and it is my considered opinion that with the consent of the parties, the appropriate orders are as follows:
The Court orders by consent under r 36.15(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 that the Orders of the Court in proceedings 2017/63578 and 2017/211667 are set aside.
Leave is granted to the parties to reopen the proceeding for the purposes of receiving any further evidence and submissions in respect of the conditions of consent for each development application referred to in Order (1) above.
The Applicant is to provide written submissions by Monday 21 May 2018 in respect of the Respondent’s proposed draft conditions of consent attached to these ordered and marked Annexure A and Annexure B.
The Respondent is to provide any written submissions in response to the Applicant’s proposed draft conditions by Monday 28 May 2018. The Court notes that the Respondent will affect service of its submissions to the Applicant by leaving a copy for collection at the Court Registry.
The matter is listed before Senior Commissioner Dixon on 15 June 2018 at 10am for a hearing on conditions.
All exhibits need to be returned to the Court.
………………………………
Susan Dixon
Senior Commissioner of the Court
**********
- AGLC
- Morgan v Lane Cove Council (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 1472
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1472
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the council's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the decision was procedurally fair. It was also necessary to determine whether the council had acted within its statutory powers and whether the decision was rational and not capricious. The plaintiff argued that the council's decision was unreasonable, unlawful, and not supported by the evidence. The defendant, Lane Cove Council, maintained that the decision was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the planning legislation and policies.
The court held that the council's decision to refuse development approval was lawful and reasonable. It found that the council had properly considered the relevant planning laws and policies, and that the decision was not capricious or irrational. The court found that the council had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was procedurally fair. The plaintiff's arguments were rejected, and the defendant's decision was upheld. The court found that the council's decision was supported by the evidence and was in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and policies. The plaintiff's challenge to the council's decision was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders at [6]
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.