Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1142


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1142
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 December 2017
Date of orders: 23 March 2017
Decision date: 23 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon 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: Precise Planning (where leave granted below: Alora Davies Developments 101 Pty Ltd) (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/283115
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. Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the name of the Applicant in the proceedings to Alora Davies Developments 101 Pty Ltd;

  2. Leave is granted to the Applicant to rely on the following amended plans:

Plan Title

Author/Drawn By

Plan Reference

Dated

Plan of Subdivision of Lot 4 DP 245153

Paul Brandon

Surveyor’s Ref 151108

14 September 2016 Rev B

Development Overview and Viewport Reference Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision H PS02A050

9 February 2017

Sediment & Erosion Control Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision D PS02- B300

9 February 2017

Sediment & Erosion Control Details

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-B310

9 September 2016

Earthwork Grading Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision H PS02-C100

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section A-A

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision D PS02-C200

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section B-B

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision C PS02-C201

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section C-C

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-C202

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section D-D

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-C203

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section E-E

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-C204

9 February 2017

Earthwork Section F-F

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-C205

9 February 2017

Earthwork Cut & Fill Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision G PS02-C600

9 February 2017

Roadworks Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision E PS02-D100

9 February 2017

21-MRC01 Longitudinal & Typical Section

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision D PS02-D200

10 January 2017

21-MRC02 Longitudinal & Typical Section

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision C PS02-D201

10 January 2017

Drainage Plan

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision I PS02-E100

9 February 2017

Drains Modelling Catchment Plan and Layout Result

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision E PS02-E610

9 February 2017

MUSIC Catchment Plan, Model Layout & Results

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision G PS02-E701

9 February 2017

Longitudinal Section of Retaining Wall along Northern Boundary

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-G210

9 February 2017

Longitudinal Section of Retaining Wall along Southern Boundary

Martens & Associates Pty Ltd

Project No. P1605138

Revision A PS02-G211

9 February 2017

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to DA 010.2016.00000358.001 for a thirty (30) lot subdivision including new public road construction and demolition of all structures removal of a swimming pool at Lot 4 DP 245153, 100 Rita Street, Thirlmere, subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.

……………………….

Commissioner Dixon

283115.16 Dixon (C) Annexure A (718 KB, pdf)

283115.16 Dixon (C) Annexure B (165 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1142
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Precise Planning versus Wollondilly Shire Council, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the council's decision to refuse a development application constituted an invalid exercise of power. The applicant, Precise Planning, sought to develop a parcel of land within the council's jurisdiction, but the council denied the application on the basis of non-compliance with local planning laws. The applicant appealed the decision, claiming that the council's refusal was unreasonable and unlawful.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council's decision was a valid exercise of its powers under the Planning Act. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the council's decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether it was based on valid reasons. The applicant argued that the council failed to consider relevant planning policies and made its decision based on irrelevant or extraneous factors. The council, on the other hand, contended that its decision was well-founded and in line with the statutory requirements.

The court held that the council's decision to refuse the development application was indeed an invalid exercise of power. The court found that the council failed to adequately consider relevant planning policies and had instead relied on extraneous factors. The court emphasised the importance of following statutory provisions and adhering to relevant planning policies when making decisions. It also noted that the reasons provided by the council for its decision were insufficient and did not align with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration.

In light of the court's findings, the council was ordered to reconsider the development application in accordance with the statutory provisions and relevant planning policies. The council was further directed to provide clear and valid reasons for its decision, ensuring that they were based on the relevant factors and considerations. This decision serves as a reminder to local councils of the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and providing valid reasons for their decisions when exercising their powers under planning legislation.

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.