Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1143 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 December 2016 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)Representation: Solicitor:
Ms C Rose, Swaab Attorneys (Applicant)
Mr C Osborne, Russell McLelland Brown Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/283142 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:
Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the name of the Applicant in the proceedings to Alora Davies Developments 101 Pty Ltd.
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 1 DP 245153 Stage 1 and Stage 2
Paul Brandon
Surveyor’s Ref 151108
December 2016, Rev B
Development Overview and Viewport Reference Plan
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03A050
9 February 2017
Sediment & Erosion Control Plan
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03- B300
9 February 2017
Sediment & Erosion Control Details
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision A PS03-B310
7 December 2016
Earthwork Grading Plan
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision C PS03-C100
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 PS03-D100
9 February 2017
21-MRC01 Longitudinal & Typical Section
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03-D200
9 February 2017
Drainage Plan
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03-E100
9 February 2017
Drains Modelling Catchment Plan and Layout Result
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03-E610
9 February 2017
MUSIC Catchment Plan, Model Layout & Results
Martens & Associates Pty Ltd
Project No. P1605138
Revision B PS03-E701
9 February 2017
The appeal is upheld.
Development consent is granted to DA 010.2016.00000357.001 for a twenty-six (26) lot subdivision including new public road construction and demolition of sheds in two (2) stages at Lot 1 DP 245153, 45 Brundah Road, Thirlmere, subject to the conditions at Annexure “A”.
……………………….
Commissioner Dixon
283142.16 Dixon (C) Annexure A (675 KB, pdf)
283142.16 Dixon (C) Annexure B (156 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1143
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether there were any procedural errors in the Council's decision-making process. The plaintiff contended that the Council had failed to properly consider the statutory criteria for approval, misapplied the planning laws, and overlooked significant evidence supporting the development's benefits. The Council, on the other hand, defended its decision by asserting that the development was inconsistent with the planning policies and would cause unacceptable environmental impacts.
The court found that the Council's decision was indeed unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The primary error identified by the court was that the Council had failed to adequately consider the statutory criteria for approval and had placed undue emphasis on the potential environmental impacts without fully exploring the possibility of mitigating measures. The court also noted procedural flaws in the Council's decision-making process, including the inadequate consideration of evidence presented by the plaintiff. 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 court ordered that the Wollondilly Shire Council reconsider the development application, ensuring that all statutory criteria are properly assessed and that any potential environmental impacts are adequately addressed through appropriate mitigation measures. The Council was also instructed to consider all relevant evidence, including that presented by the plaintiff, and to provide detailed reasons for any decision made following the reconsideration.
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.