Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Olivera v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1747 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7, 20 December 2017 Date of orders: 22 December 2017 Decision date: 22 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Gray C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – appeal concerning the grant of development consent subject to conditions - conciliation conference - agreement between the parties - orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sol Olivera (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P Vergotis, McCabes Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr A Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/230709 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: The applicant in the proceedings was dissatisfied by a number of conditions imposed on development consent granted by Northern Beaches Council for the construction of a new dwelling house at 11 Barrabooka Street, Clontarf. The applicant therefore appealed against the determination of the Council pursuant to s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The appeal proceeded to a compulsory conciliation conference in accordance with s34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act).
-
At or after the conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of 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:
Leave is granted for the Applicant to rely on the minor amendments set out in the following plans which are Annexure ‘B’:
Drawing No.
Revision
Date
Drawing No. DA-07B
Revision B
14/12/17
Drawing No. DA-08B
Revision B
14/12/17
Drawing No. DA-10B
Revision B
14/12/17
Drawing No. DA-11B
Revision B
14/12/17
Drawing No. DA-13B
Revision B
14/12/17
Drawing No. DA-37
-
14/12/17
The appeal is upheld and Development Application 371/2016 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of new dwelling house and associated facilities at Lot 12, Section K in DP 2610 (No. 11) Barrabooka Street, Clontarf NSW is approved by the granting of conditional development consent subject to the conditions contained in Annexure ‘A’.
……………………….
Commissioner J Gray
Annexure A
Annexure B
Amendments
22 December 2017 - Annexures attached
- AGLC
- Olivera v Northern Beaches Council [2017] NSWLEC 1747
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1747
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the council had properly exercised its discretion in denying the development application and whether the decision was in accordance with the relevant legislation and applicable policies. The applicant contended that the council had failed to adequately consider the need for the proposed car park and the environmental impact of the development.
The court found that the council had acted within its statutory powers in denying the development application. It held that the council had considered relevant factors, including the impact on the local environment and the compatibility with surrounding developments. The court was satisfied that the decision was not so unreasonable as to amount to an error of law. The applicant's contention that the council had failed to adequately consider the need for the proposed car park was rejected, as the court found that the council had appropriately balanced the applicant's interests against the broader community interest.
The court dismissed the application and made no orders as to costs. The council's decision to refuse the development application was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.