Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Renee Williamson-Noble v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1704 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 8 December 2017 Date of orders: 08 December 2017 Decision date: 08 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012Category: Principal judgment Parties: Renee Williamson-Noble (Applicant)
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Knox, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr K Webber, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/249854 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:
The appeal is upheld.
The applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans at annexure “A”.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away pursuant to s97b of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the sum of $1,200.
The applicant’s clause 4.6 written request prepared by Chapman Planning Pty Ltd revised December 2017 for variation to the floor space ratio standard pursuant to clause 4.4A of Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 is upheld.
Development Application DA 2017/87 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new 2 storey dwelling house at 9 The Barbican, Castlecrag is approved subject to the conditions at annexure “B”.
……………………….
Senior Commissioner Martin
Annexure A (9.35 MB, pdf)
Annexure B (C) (310 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Renee Williamson-Noble v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWLEC 1704
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1704
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court included whether the council's decision was based on proper consideration of relevant factors and whether the decision-making process adhered to the statutory requirements set forth in the relevant planning legislation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the council had appropriately exercised its discretion and whether there were any errors in the interpretation of the development application.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the council's decision was indeed flawed. The reasoning provided by the council did not adequately address the statutory criteria for granting a development permit. The court held that the council had failed to properly consider the merits of the application and had not adequately balanced the competing interests involved. Furthermore, the court found that the decision-making process did not comply with the statutory requirements, leading to an unreasonable outcome. The court concluded that the council's decision was therefore unlawful and should be set aside.
As a result of the court's findings, the decision of the Willoughby City Council was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the council for reconsideration in accordance with the statutory framework. The plaintiff's application for a development permit was to be assessed afresh, ensuring that all relevant factors were properly considered and that the statutory requirements were adhered to in the decision-making process.
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.