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 1979Category: 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings and explained how they have been satisfied.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Court orders:
Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended plans as set out in condition No.1 of Annexure A.
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.
The Appeal is upheld.
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)
**********
- AGLC
- Simpson v Northern Beaches Council [2019] NSWLEC 1004
- Case
- [2019] NSWLEC 1004
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.