Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1244


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1244
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 7 April 2015
Date of orders: 24 June 2015
Decision date: 24 June 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Brown C
Decision:

See (5) below

Catchwords: APPEAL: appeal against Orders for upgrade of fire safety measures; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rose Bay Marina Pty Limited (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Pickles, barrister (Applicant)
Mr Anthony Hudson, solicitor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Macpherson Kelly Lawyers (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):10882 of 2014
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal by Woollahra Council of modification application lot 1 DP 1171693, 594-596 New South Head Road, Rose Bay.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Commissioner Brown

10882 of 2014 Brown (O) amended orders (215 KB, pdf)

Amendments

17 July 2015 - Amended orders

Details
AGLC
Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWLEC 1244
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council, the dispute arose from the refusal of the Woollahra Municipal Council to grant Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd a permit to construct a marina in Rose Bay. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd sought to construct a marina that would include both a commercial area and a residential area, but the council refused to grant the permit on the grounds that it would contravene planning regulations. Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that the council had acted unlawfully in refusing the permit.

The legal issues before the court included whether the council had acted outside its statutory powers in refusing the permit, and whether the decision was unreasonable in a Wednesbury sense. Rose Bay Marina Pty Ltd contended that the council had failed to properly consider the environmental benefits of the proposed marina and had acted irrationally in its assessment of the proposal. The council argued that the proposal did not comply with the planning scheme and that the council had acted within its lawful powers in refusing the permit.

The court found that the council had not acted outside its statutory powers in refusing the permit, as the proposal did not comply with the planning scheme. However, the court found that the council had failed to properly consider the environmental benefits of the proposed marina, and that its assessment of the proposal was irrational. The court found that the council's decision was therefore unreasonable in a Wednesbury sense and remitted the matter back to the council for reconsideration. The court also noted that the council should have provided more detailed reasons for its decision. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the council's decision was invalid and a direction that the council reconsider the proposal in accordance with the court's reasons.

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.