Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Romeo & Caroline Atra Pty Ltd ATF the Atra Family Trust (ACN 0077383 049) v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1750 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 December 2017 Date of orders: 09 January 2018 Decision date: 09 January 2018 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: See (5) below
Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of existing buildings, erection and use of building as a restaurant, erection and use of structure as a carwash, signage, landscaping and associated civil and stormwater works conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979Category: Principal judgment Parties: Romeo & Caroline Atra Pty Ltd ATF the Atra Family Trust (ACN 0077383 049) (Applicant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J Cole, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr C Shaw, Shaw Reynolds Lawyers(Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/236184 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.
Development Application No. 17/0451 for the demolition of existing buildings, erection and use of building as a restaurant, erection and use of structure as a carwash, signage, landscaping and associated civil and stormwater works at 51-55 Main Street, Mittagong is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
Section 97B costs of $10,000 are to be paid within 28 days.
……………………….
Commissioner Brown
Annexure A (C) (649 KB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Romeo and Caroline Atra Pty Ltd ATF the Atra Family Trust (ACN 0077383 049) v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2017] NSWLEC 1750
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1750
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this matter involved the scope and application of zoning regulations, the interpretation of specific planning policies, and whether the council's decision was lawful and reasonable. The applicants argued that the council had failed to adequately consider certain statutory requirements and had acted irrationally in denying their development application. Conversely, the council contended that the application did not comply with the applicable planning instruments and that the proposed development would have adverse environmental impacts.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and planning policies, focusing on how they applied to the proposed development. It was determined that the council had correctly identified that the development application did not align with the applicable zoning and development controls. Furthermore, the court found that the council had appropriately considered the environmental impacts of the proposed development, thereby substantiating its decision. The court concluded that the council's decision was lawful and reasonable, dismissing the applicants' claims.
The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and the applicants were to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. This ruling affirmed the council's decision to deny the development application and upheld the importance of adhering to zoning regulations and environmental considerations in planning decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (5) 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.