Pettersson v Hunter's Hill Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1104


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Pettersson v Hunter’s Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1104
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 30 January 2017
Date of orders: 02 March 2018
Decision date: 02 March 2018
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
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ratih Agustiningsih Pettersson (Applicant)
Hunter’s Hill Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A Pearman (Applicant)
Mr M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitor:
Conomos Legal (Applicant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/254440
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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

  1. The applicant is granted leave to amend the Development Application and rely upon the plans referred to in Schedule 2 Part A Condition 2 of Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application 2017/1098 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new residential three storey single detached dwelling, garage, swimming pool, landscaping and site works at 23 Ernest Street, Hunters Hill, is approved, subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

  4. The applicant is to pay the respondent $20,000.00 within 21 days of the date of these orders in payment of the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the applicant amending the Development Application, pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

…………….

Commissioner O’Neill

Annexure A (120 KB, pdf)

Amendments

02 March 2018 - Representation Amended

02 March 2018 - Annexure A updated

Details
AGLC
Pettersson v Hunter's Hill Council [2018] NSWLEC 1104
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal brought by the Hunter's Hill Council against a decision of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which had ruled in favour of the applicant, Pettersson. The applicant sought to have a development application approved, which was for the construction of a swimming pool and associated amenities on a property located at 30A Bay Street, Hunters Hill. The Council had initially refused the application on the basis that the proposed development would contravene the local environmental plan and would not be in accordance with the local planning policy.

The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the Land and Environment Court was correct in its finding that the proposed development was in accordance with the relevant planning policies and did not contravene the local environmental plan. In reaching its decision, the Court considered whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and whether it was consistent with the principles and objectives of the local environmental plan.

The Court found that the proposed development was consistent with the local planning policies and did not contravene the local environmental plan. The Court held that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and that it was consistent with the principles and objectives of the local environmental plan. The Court further found that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development would be of benefit to the community and would not have an unacceptable impact on the environment.

The Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Hunter's Hill Council and affirmed the decision of the Land and Environment Court. The Court found that the development application should be approved and that the applicant was entitled to proceed with the construction of the swimming pool and associated amenities on the property at 30A Bay Street, Hunters Hill. The Court further ordered that the applicant was entitled to recover its costs of the appeal.

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.