Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1412


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1412
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 1 July 2016
Date of orders: 12 September 2016
Decision date: 12 September 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A. Boskovitz solicitor (Applicant)
Mr S. Patterson solicitor (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Boskovitz & Associates Solicitors (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/00156126
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, 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 the following plans:

  1. LEC2 100 Issue 2 dated 26 August 2016

  2. LEC2 101 Issue 5 dated 25 August 2016

  3. LEC2 102 Issue 4 dated 23 August 2016

  4. LEC2 103 Issue 3 dated 11 August 2016

  5. LEC2 104 Issue 3 dated 11 August 2016

  6. LEC2 200 Issue 3 dated 11 August 2016

  7. LEC2 201 Issue 3 dated 11 August 2016

  8. LEC2 202 Issue 3 dated 11 August 2016

  1. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away for the purpose of section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the agreed amount of $2500.00 within 14 days.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Application No. DA 51/2016 for alterations and additions to an under construction residential flat building and strata subdivision at 91-95 Old South Head Road, Bondi Junction NSW 2022, is approved, subject to the conditions at Annexure ‘A’.

…………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner

156126.16 - Annexure A (82.2 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1412
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1412
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parker Logan Property Pty Ltd v Waverley Council, the dispute arose from a planning application submitted by Parker Logan Property for the redevelopment of a property located at Bondi Junction. The Waverley Council rejected the application, citing concerns about the density and height of the proposed development. Parker Logan subsequently sought judicial review of the Council's decision in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable and whether it had properly exercised its discretion under the relevant planning legislation.

The court examined the statutory framework governing planning decisions, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the Waverley Local Environment Plan 2012. The court considered whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers, and whether its decision was based on relevant considerations and was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable. The court also assessed whether the Council had properly applied the criteria and policies outlined in the local environment plan.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Council's decision was flawed as it had not properly considered a key criterion relating to the height of the proposed development. The court held that the Council had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and that the decision was therefore invalid. The court remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, directing the Council to consider the height criterion and provide detailed reasons for its decision. The court did not order any specific outcome regarding the approval or rejection of the planning application, but rather directed the Council to reassess the application in light of the court's findings.

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.