Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1039 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 25 January 2018 Date of orders: 02 February 2018 Decision date: 02 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Maston AC 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: Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitor:
Mr H Kahagalle, Addisons Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/139254 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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 appeal is upheld.
Leave is granted for the parties to rely upon the amended plans referred to in the conditions set out in Annexure “A”, copies of which are annexed and marked "B".
The applicant is to pay the Council's costs thrown away pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $35,000 by 25 January 2018.
Development Application number DA-2017/167 for the development of 45 Lawson Street, San Souci, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Acting Commissioner Maston
Annexure A (311 KB, pdf)
Annexure B (14.9 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1039
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1039
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the council's decision was lawful and whether the planning scheme was correctly applied. Central to the case was the interpretation of the planning scheme provisions and whether the council's decision was unreasonable. The court needed to determine if the council's rejection of the development application was based on proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and whether there was any procedural unfairness.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the application of the planning scheme to the facts of the case. It was determined that the council had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the planning scheme and had applied an incorrect legal test in reaching its decision. The court found that the decision was not only procedurally unfair but also substantively flawed. Consequently, the council's rejection of the development application was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.
The final orders of the court mandated that the council reconsider the development application in light of the court's findings. The council was required to ensure that all relevant considerations were properly weighed and that the correct legal standards were applied. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to planning laws and the need for councils to act within their statutory powers.
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.