St Vincent de Paul Housing t/as Amelie Housing v Sutherland Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1144


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: St Vincent de Paul Housing t/as Amelie Housing v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1144
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 7 February 2018
Date of orders: 21 March 2018
Decision date: 21 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: O’Neill C
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: St Vincent de Paul Housing t/as Amelie Housing (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr Robert Wilcher, Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Janelle Amy, Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/264789
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 Applicant is granted leave to amend their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A;

  2. The appeal be upheld;

  3. Development consent be granted to Development Application No. DA17/0704 for a seniors housing development comprising 36 dwellings including:

  1. demolition of existing single storey structures on site (except the Mount St Vincent House (heritage item);

  2. alterations and refurbishment of Mount St Vincent House (heritage item) to accommodate 3 seniors living units and communal areas;

  3. the construction of three blocks, containing 24 x one bedroom apartments and 9 x two bedroom apartments;

at 6-16 Smarts Crescent, Burraneer, NSW 2230, on conditions set out in Annexure A.

  1. The Court notes that the parties agree that the amendments are minor so costs under s.8.15(3) (formerly s.97B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 are not payable.

……………………….

Susan O’Neill

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (154 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
St Vincent de Paul Housing t/as Amelie Housing v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1144
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Vincent de Paul Housing, trading as Amelie Housing, brought an action against the Sutherland Shire Council in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the approval process for a housing development project proposed by Amelie Housing within the Sutherland Shire. The applicant sought judicial review of the Council's decision to refuse approval of the development application, arguing that the refusal was unreasonable and unlawful.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Council had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the development application, and whether there were procedural errors or other legal grounds that rendered the decision unlawful. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Council's decision was supported by proper consideration of relevant planning policies and statutory requirements.

The court found that the Sutherland Shire Council had failed to properly consider a significant policy within the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan that pertained to the development of affordable housing. The court held that this oversight rendered the decision to refuse the development application unreasonable. Furthermore, the court found that the Council's reasons for refusal did not adequately address the statutory criteria under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the correct legal framework and policy considerations.

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.