Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1143


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

  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 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

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. 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)

Details
AGLC
Precise Planning v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1143
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Precise Planning and Wollondilly Shire Council was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Precise Planning, sought a review of the defendant Council's decision to refuse a development application for a project in a designated rural area. Precise Planning argued that the Council's decision was unreasonable and based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant planning laws.

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.