Trend Living Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1215


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trend Living Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1215
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 4 May 2018
Date of orders: 04 May 2018
Decision date: 04 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dickson C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Trend Living Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
G McKee, McKees Legal Solutions (Applicant)
S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/135399
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This in application by Trend Living Pty Ltd against the deemed refusal by Northern Beaches Council pursuant to Section 97(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to grant consent to Development Application number DA2017/0256 for excavation works and the construction of a mixed use building containing self-storage units and industrial warehouse units in relation to Lot 27 in Deposited Plan 28882 and Lot 9 in Deposited Plan 201553 being 69 Middleton Road & 6 Villiers Place, Cromer.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 a) of Annexure "A".

  2. The Appeal is upheld.

  3. Development Application No. DA2017/0256 for excavation works and construction of a mixed use building containing self-storage units and industrial warehouse units at 69 Middleton Road and 6 Villiers Place, Cromer is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure "A" to this agreement.

  4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs arising under s8.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the amount as agreed or assessed.

……………………….

D M Dickson

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (140 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Trend Living Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2018] NSWLEC 1215
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trend Living Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by Northern Beaches Council to refuse their application for development consent. The primary issue was whether the council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court examined whether the council acted within its statutory powers and followed the correct procedure when making its decision. It also considered whether the council had taken into account all relevant matters and whether the decision was irrational. The key legal issue was whether the council's decision to refuse development consent was legally sound.

The court found that the council's decision was lawful and based on relevant considerations. It held that the council had acted within its statutory powers and followed the correct procedure. The court also found that the council had considered all relevant matters and that the decision was rational. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. The court held that the respondent was entitled to costs as the applicant's application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of any further proceedings arising from the application for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] 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.