Simpson v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2019] NSWLEC 1004


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simpson v Northern Beaches Council [2019] NSWLEC 1004
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 21 December 2018
Date of orders: 09 January 2019
Decision date: 09 January 2019
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Walsh C
Decision:

See orders at [9] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; approving the development of a residential flat building and strata subdivision
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Christine Ann Simpson (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
A Sattler, Sattler & Associates Pty Ltd (Applicant)
E Julliard, Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/231250
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: These proceedings, brought under Class 1 of the Court’s jurisdiction, are an appeal pursuant to s 8.7(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) against the Respondent’s refusal of development application DA No. 2017/1062 (DA) for demolition of existing structures and construction of a 2-storey residential flat building containing 3 units and landscaping and ancillary works at 97 Lagoon Street, Narrabeen (site). The site is also described as Lot 4 DP450303. The DA also proposes strata subdivision.

  2. The Court arranged a conciliation conference under s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act) between the parties, which was held on 21 December 2018. I presided over the conciliation conference.

  3. At the conciliation conference, the parties provided to the Court an agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. This decision involved the Court granting leave to the Applicant to rely on amended plans (which the Respondent has agreed resolves the reasons for refusal by improving solar access to the adjoining property and reduces the visual bulk of the development) and upholding the appeal and granting development consent to the development application subject to conditions.

  4. Under s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision if the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties’ decision involves the Court exercising the function under s 4.16(1)(a) of the EPA Act to grant consent to the development application.

  5. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how they have been satisfied.

  6. I am satisfied that the parties’ decision is one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, as required by s 34(3) of the LEC Act.

  7. As the parties’ decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties’ decision.

  8. The parties also agree that, pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the EPA Act, an order for the payment by the applicant of those costs of the Respondent that have been thrown away as a result of the amendment of the DA should be made, and that the quantum of costs payable is $900.

  9. The Court orders:

  1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended plans as set out in condition No.1 of Annexure A.

  2. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to s 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount of $900.00 within 21 days of the date of order.

  3. The Appeal is upheld.

  4. Development Application 2017/1062 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of residential flat building and landscape works at 97 Lagoon Street, Narrabeen is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

…………………………..

P Walsh

Commissioner of the Court

s34 plans 

Annexure A (97.6 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Simpson v Northern Beaches Council [2019] NSWLEC 1004
Case
[2019] NSWLEC 1004
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson v Northern Beaches Council was a case heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved Mr. Simpson, who sought a review of a decision by the Northern Beaches Council to refuse his application for a change of use permit for his property. The property, located in Collaroy Plateau, was zoned for low-density residential use. Mr. Simpson sought to change the zoning to allow for a bed and breakfast operation. The Council rejected the application, citing concerns about the impact on the local character and amenity of the area, as well as potential traffic issues.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and supported by proper consideration of relevant planning and environmental factors. Mr. Simpson argued that the Council had failed to adequately consider the potential economic benefits of the proposed bed and breakfast, and had unfairly relied on speculative and unsubstantiated concerns about traffic and the impact on neighbouring properties. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on a careful assessment of the application in the context of the local planning framework and environmental policies.

The court found that the Council's decision was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence before it. The court held that the Council had appropriately considered the relevant planning instruments and policies, and had given due weight to the potential impacts on the local environment and community. The court also found that the Council's concerns about traffic and the impact on neighbouring properties were not speculative, but were based on objective evidence and expert opinion. The court rejected Mr. Simpson's argument that the Council had failed to consider the potential economic benefits of the proposed development, finding that these benefits were properly considered but ultimately outweighed by the potential adverse impacts on the local area. The court therefore dismissed Mr. Simpson's application for judicial review.

The court's final order was that the application for judicial review be dismissed, with Mr. Simpson to pay the Council's costs of the proceeding. The court found that the Council's decision to refuse the change of use permit was lawful and reasonable, and that the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The court also ordered that Mr. Simpson pay the Council's costs of the proceeding, which were assessed at $15,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [9] 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.