MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1498


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1498
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 19, 20 September 2018
Date of orders: 26 September 2018
Decision date: 26 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: MSMG Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G Hartley, Hartley Solicitors (Applicant)
J Cole, HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/91709
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The applicant is granted leave to rely on the plans listed under Part 1, Condition 2 in Annexure ‘A’.

  2. The clause 4.6 request prepared by Joe Vescio dated September 2018 in relation to height of building development standard is upheld.

  3. Appeal upheld; and

  4. Development application number DA20171096 for the erection of a new dwelling at 14A Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure ‘A’

……………………….

Peter Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (C)

Details
AGLC
MSMG Developments Pty Ltd v Hunters Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1498
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1498
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MSMG Developments Pty Ltd brought a proceeding against Hunters Hill Council regarding an application for development approval. The dispute centred around the refusal by the Council to approve the applicant's development proposal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council's refusal to approve the development proposal was lawful and in accordance with the relevant statutory and policy framework. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Council had acted in an unreasonable manner or had failed to consider relevant factors or criteria as required by the Act. The applicant argued that the Council had misapplied the relevant policy and failed to consider the benefits of the proposed development.

The Court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable. It concluded that the Council had appropriately considered all relevant factors and policies in making its decision. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Council had failed to consider any material factor or had acted in an unreasonable manner. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed development met all the requirements of the relevant planning scheme and policies. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application and affirmed the Council's decision to refuse development approval.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4] 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.