Osbourne Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1536


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Osbourne Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1536
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 24 August and 13 September 2017
Date of orders: 25 September 2017
Decision date: 25 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

See (3) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Osbourne Investments Pty Ltd (Applicant 1)
Megawise Funds Management Pty Ltd (Applicant 2)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr O’Brien, O’Brien Legal Pty Ltd (Applicants)
Mr Ball, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/119638
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 rely on amended plans referenced to in condition 2, Annexure A.

  2. That the Appeal is upheld.

  3. Consent is granted to development application DA/1037/2016 for demolition of existing dwellings and structures, construction of two residential flat buildings with basement car parks comprising 75 units (37 dwellings in the north building and 38 dwellings in the south building) and 91 car parking spaces, and landscaping at Lot 21 DP934851, Lots 21 and 22 DP543092, Lot 11 and 12 DP1011757, known as 15-19 Church Street and 21-23 River Road, Wyong.

……………………….

Commissioner Bish

Annexure A (1.38 MB, pdf)

Amendments

12 February 2018 - 12 February 2018 - Correction made to Parties

Details
AGLC
Osbourne Investments Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1536
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1536
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Osbourne Investments Pty Ltd took legal action against Central Coast Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant's approval of a development application, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, was invalid due to procedural errors. The case also involved a challenge to the decision-making process of the council, specifically whether it adhered to the statutory requirements and natural justice principles.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the council's approval process complied with the statutory framework and whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings. The court had to examine the procedural fairness of the council's decision-making process and assess if there were any procedural errors that rendered the approval invalid. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff had a sufficient interest to challenge the council's decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the council's approval was indeed flawed due to procedural errors. The court found that the council had failed to properly notify certain stakeholders, which breached the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the approval was deemed invalid. The court also ruled that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the decision as it had a sufficient interest in the matter. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the council's approval would significantly impact their property and development plans.

The court declared the council's approval invalid and quashed the decision. The matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The plaintiff was awarded costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (3) 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.