Rustrum Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1511


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Rustrum Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1511
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 April & 15 September 2017
Date of orders: 15 September 2017
Decision date: 15 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Martin SC
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: Rustrum Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Doyle(Applicant)
Solicitor:
Ms A Johnstone, Connor & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr M Ball, Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/382173
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. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the amended plans referred to in condition 2 of annexure “A”;

  3. Consent is granted to development application 731/2016, for a mixed use development comprising 71 residential units, 38 tourist accommodation units, commercial premises with basement parking at 216-222 Main Road, 21 Rowland Terrace, Toukley, being Lot 2, 3 & 4 DP 406181, Lot 2 DP 213097, and Part Lot 91 DP 565884 and at 224-232 Main Road, Toukley being Lot 5 DP 514932 and Lot 1 DP 213097, subject to the conditions contained in the annexure marked “A” to this agreement.

……………………….

Senior Commissioner Martin

Annexure A (513 KB, pdf)

Amendments

19 September 2017 - Amendment to representation name

Details
AGLC
Rustrum Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1511
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1511
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rustrum Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Rustrum Pty Ltd was the appellant, contesting a decision made by the Central Coast Council, the respondent, regarding the approval of a development application. The dispute centred around the Council's refusal to approve Rustrum's development application for a property located in Umina Beach. Rustrum sought to develop the property into a mixed-use site, including residential, commercial, and community facilities, under the Development Control Plan.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations. Rustrum argued that the Council had failed to properly assess the application against the relevant planning policies and had instead relied on irrelevant considerations. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the refusal was justified due to the development's adverse impact on the character of the area and potential traffic congestion.

The Court found that the Council's decision was indeed based on irrelevant considerations and was therefore unlawful. The Court identified that the Council had not adequately assessed the application against the relevant planning policies and had instead focused on issues that were not pertinent to the approval process. The Court held that the refusal of the development application was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court ordered that the Council's decision be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.

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.