Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Morton v Lane Cove Council [2016] NSWLEC 1299 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 15 April, 6 May, 28 June 2016 Date of orders: 12 July 2016 Decision date: 12 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: subdivision of land; partial demolition of existing dwelling and retention of other dwelling; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen James Morton (Applicant)
Lane Cove Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr C Gough, solicitor (Applicant)
Ms J McCullan, solicitor (Respondent)
Storey & Gough (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00163119 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal of DA No 131/2015 for the subdivision of land; partial demolition of existing dwelling and retention of other dwelling at 4 Bay street Greenwich.
-
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, 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 given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:
Plan of Proposed Subdivision of Lot B DP316274 and Lot 1 DP107132 prepared by Frank M Mason and Co Pty Limited, dated 05.07.16 ref 33077-10
Stormwater Drainage DWNG NO:x35/1, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 05/16, Issue B, prepared by Amtech Engineering;
Ground and First Floor Plans, Drwg W47/1, Sheet 1 of 4, dated May 2016 (Issue A), Proposed Dwelling, 4 Bay St, Greenwich, Mr & Mrs S Morton;
North & West Elevations, Drwg W47/1, Sheet 2 of 4, dated May 2016 (Issue A), Proposed Dwelling, 4 Bay St, Greenwich, Mr & Mrs S Morton;
East & South Elevations, Drwg W47/1, Sheet 3 of 4, dated May 2016 (Issue A), Proposed Dwelling, 4 Bay St, Greenwich, Mr & Mrs S Morton;
Site Plan & Section, Drwg W47/1, Sheet 4 of 4, dated May 2016 (Issue B), Proposed Dwelling, 4 Bay St, Greenwich, Mr & Mrs S Morton.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Application No. 131/2015 as amended, for the demolition of part of the existing dual occupancy dwelling located on proposed Lot 1 and the retention of a single dwelling on that lot, and a two lot subdivision into two equal lots of 550m2, on the land at Lot B in Deposited Plan 316274, 4 Bay Street, Greenwich, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure "A" hereto.
…………….
G T Brown
Commissioner
163119.16 - Annexure A (40.1 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Morton v Lane Cove Council [2016] NSWLEC 1299
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1299
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant legal principles and authorities. The judge found that the Council had acted lawfully and rationally in approving the development application. The court held that the Council had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the planning scheme and had considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The judge also found that the Council's decision was not irrational or unreasonable, and that there was no basis for setting it aside. The court rejected Mr Morton's challenge to the Council's decision and dismissed his application.
In light of the above, the court made several orders. Firstly, the court dismissed Mr Morton's application in its entirety. Secondly, the court ordered that Mr Morton pay the costs of the proceeding. The costs were to be paid by Mr Morton on an indemnity basis, meaning that he was responsible for paying all of the legal costs incurred by the Council in bringing and defending the proceeding. The court also made an order for security for costs, which required Mr Morton to provide a bond to cover the Council's costs in the event that he was unable to pay them. Finally, the court made an order that the proceedings be listed for further directions, although this order was subsequently varied by agreement of the parties.
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.