Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ostaford Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1297 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 9 June 2017 Date of orders: 09 June 2017 Decision date: 09 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Chilcott C 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: Ostaford Pty Limited (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr R Walters (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2016/384240 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 to the applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 1.1 of annexure “A”;
Consent is granted to development application 47009/2015, for construction and establishment of drive through, take-away and dine-in restaurant (Carls Jnr) and signage, at Lot 201 DP 1201057, with a street address of 61 Central Coast Highway, West Gosford, NSW subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.
…………….
M Chilcott
Commissioner of the Court
384240.16 (C).docx (342 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ostaford Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1297
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council had the authority to revoke the planning permit and if the decision was made in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court was required to consider the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the common law principles governing the exercise of statutory powers. The court also needed to assess whether there was any procedural unfairness in the Council's decision-making process.
The court found that the Council had the statutory authority to revoke the planning permit, but the decision was not made in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. The court held that the Council had failed to provide proper reasons for the revocation, which was a significant procedural error. Furthermore, the court determined that the Council's decision was influenced by an irrelevant consideration, which further undermined the validity of the revocation. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision to revoke the planning permit.
The court ordered that the Council's decision to revoke the planning permit was unlawful and invalid, and that the original permit remained in effect. The court also directed that the Council provide written reasons for its decision within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court ordered the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
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.