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:
Solicitors:
Mr M Staunton (Applicant)
Mr A Sattler, Sattler & Associates (Applicant)
Ms R McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/354435 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
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.
The appeal is allowed.
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.
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)
- AGLC
- Stock v Mosman Council [2018] NSWLEC 1188
- Case
- [2018] NSWLEC 1188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.