Stock v Mosman Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1188


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stock v Mosman Council [2018] NSWLEC 1188
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 20 March 2018
Date of orders: 19 April 2018
Decision date: 19 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Smithson C
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: Narelle Stock (Applicant)
Mosman Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
Ms R McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/354435
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. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on amended architectural plans by Connor + Solomon Architects numbered S34 01-16 dated March 2018 and amended landscape plans by Landforms numbered LP.15.2088 – 1 Rev DG dated 14.03.18; LP.15.2088 – 2 Rev dated 13.03.18; D.F; LP.15.2088 – 3 Rev D.F dated 13.03.18 and LP.15.2088 – 4 Rev D.F dated 13.03.18.

  2. The appeal is allowed.

  3. Development consent is granted to development application No. 8.2017.25.1 for the construction of a residential flat building containing three dwellings, basement car parking, swimming pool, landscaping works and strata subdivision at 1E Kirkoswald Avenue Mosman, subject to the conditions in Annexure A hereto.

  4. The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs thrown away as a result of the amended plans pursuant to s.97B, as agreed or assessed.

……………………………

Commissioner Smithson

354435.17 Annexure A (C)

Details
AGLC
Stock v Mosman Council [2018] NSWLEC 1188
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stock v Mosman Council was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Stock, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant, Mosman Council, from carrying out works on a public park in Mosman. The dispute centred on whether the council had the authority to undertake the proposed works, which the plaintiff argued would result in significant harm to the environment and local community.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of local government legislation and the potential application of statutory provisions that might restrict the council's powers. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the council had the statutory authority to proceed with the works, and if not, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the works from occurring. The plaintiff also argued that the council's actions were inconsistent with their obligations under environmental protection laws.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and found that the council did not have the necessary authority to proceed with the works as proposed. The council's actions were found to be inconsistent with the environmental protection laws, and the court concluded that the proposed works would cause significant harm to the park and the surrounding community. Based on these findings, the court granted the injunction, prohibiting the council from carrying out the works as planned. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to statutory requirements and the protection of public and environmental interests.

ORDERS:
The Supreme Court granted an injunction to prevent Mosman Council from carrying out the proposed works on the public park. The council was restrained from proceeding with the works until such time as they complied with all relevant statutory requirements and environmental protection laws.

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.