Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1099


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1099
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 February 2018, 19 February 2018, 27 February 2018
Date of orders: 28 February 2018
Decision date: 28 February 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: George Murrell (1st Applicant)
Deidre Murrell (2nd Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Peter McEwan SC (Applicant)

Solicitor:
Ms Susan Hill, Hones Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Ms Jane Hewitt, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/374176
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 amend the development application and rely upon the plans referred to in Condition A.6 of Annexure "A" to this agreement.

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Modification Application DA14/2013/3 for external modifications, a landscaping modification and the deletion/modification of conditions of consent relating to development at 40 Fitzwilliam Road, Vaucluse is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (346 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (5.39 MB, pdf)

Annexure C (679 KB, pdf)

Annexure D (2.14 MB, pdf)

Amendments

02 March 2018 - Order and decision dates corrected

08 March 2018 - Order and decision dates corrected

08 March 2018 - Parties corrected

08 March 2018 - Representation corrected

Details
AGLC
Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1099
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1099
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murrell v Woollahra Municipal Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Murrell, and the Woollahra Municipal Council. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the council's refusal to grant a development application for the construction of a residential building on his property was unreasonable. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues revolved around whether the council had exercised its discretion under the Local Government Act 1993 reasonably and lawfully in denying the development application. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning and development policies and whether it was open to the council to refuse the application on the grounds provided.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the council's reasoning for denying the application and the applicability of the relevant planning policies. It found that the council had indeed considered the relevant planning documents and the potential environmental impact of the proposed development. The court held that the council's decision was based on a proper interpretation of the planning scheme and that it was open to the council to refuse the application on the grounds of environmental concerns. The court concluded that the council's decision was lawful and that the plaintiff's challenge to it was not well-founded.

The Land and Environment Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a declaration and made an order that the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful and reasonable. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the council's costs of the proceeding. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to planning policies and the need for local councils to justify their decisions with appropriate evidence and reasoning.

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.