Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Bayside Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1039


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

  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 appeal is upheld.

  2. 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".

  3. 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.

  4. 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)

Details
AGLC
Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Bayside Council [2018] NSWLEC 1039
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1039
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nanevski Developments Pty Ltd v Bayside Council was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the approval of a development application for a residential building in Bayside. The developer, Nanevski Developments, sought approval to construct a new apartment complex. Bayside Council, however, rejected the application on the grounds that it violated the local planning scheme. Nanevski Developments challenged the council's decision, asserting that the rejection was not justified under the planning laws.

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.