Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nelson v Sutherland Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1441 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4, 18 and 22 July 2024 Date of orders: 30 July 2024 Decision date: 30 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent is granted for Development Application DA23/0352 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy with strata subdivision at 123 Nicholson Parade Cronulla in the terms set out in Annexure A.
Catchwords: APPEAL – development application – dual occupancy and strata subdivision – conciliation conference – agreement reached – orders made
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, ss 4.15, 4.16, 8.7
Land and Environment Court Act 1979, ss 34, 34AA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021, ss 27, 37, 38
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards), s 4.6
Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015, cll 2.5, 4.1B, 6.2, 6.4, 6.13A, 6.14, 6.16, 6.17, Sch 1 cl 28
Cases Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Adam Nelson (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Harker (Applicant)
J Amy (Solicitor) (Council)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/462721 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: Nicholson Parade, in Cronulla, runs generally parallel to the foreshore of the Port Hacking River. This appeal concerns a development application for the construction of a dual occupancy at 123 Nicholson Parade. The development application was lodged on 19 June 2023. Following the expiry of the period after which a development application is deemed to be refused, the applicant lodged this appeal pursuant to s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). In exercising the functions of the consent authority on the appeal, the Court has the power to determine the development application pursuant to ss 4.15 and 4.16 of the EPA Act. The final orders in this appeal, outlined in [12] below, are made as a result of an agreement between the parties that was reached at a conciliation conference.
-
The Court was required to arrange a conciliation conference between the parties, pursuant to s 34AA(2)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act). The conciliation conference commenced on 4 July 2024 and continued on 18 and 22 July 2024. I presided over the conciliation conference.
-
At the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the LEC Act was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. The final signed agreement was submitted on 22 July 2024. The agreement followed the grant of leave on 18 July 2024 torely on amended documents pursuant to orders sought in a Notice of Motion filed on 26 June 2024, and follows the Council’s approval of an application for an amendment to a development application pursuant to ss 37 and 38…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nelson v Sutherland Shire Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWLEC 1441
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the council had acted beyond its statutory powers, whether there was an error of law, and if the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Furthermore, the court had to assess the merits of the development application against the planning scheme and relevant policies.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was flawed on several grounds. The council had failed to adequately consider the applicant's proposal in light of the relevant planning policies and had not provided sufficient reasons for the refusal. The court concluded that the decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. The appeal was upheld, and the court granted development consent for the proposed dual occupancy with strata subdivision, subject to the terms set out in Annexure A. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proper consideration and adequate reasoning in development assessment processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Development Consent is granted for Development Application DA23/0352 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a dual occupancy with strata subdivision at 123 Nicholson Parade Cronulla in the terms set out in Annexure A.
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.