Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ure v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1246 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 12 May 2017 Date of orders: 12 May 2017 Decision date: 12 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: O’Neill 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: Sylvia Ure (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Tyrell solicitor (Applicant)
Mr Hudson solicitor (Respondent)
McKee Legal Solutions.(Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/48257 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, 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 were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.
The appeal is upheld.
The applicant is granted leave to modify their development application in accordance with the plans referred to in condition 1 of Annexure A.
Development Application No DA-11/2016 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey dwelling and attached secondary dwelling is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure A.
…………….
Commissioner O’Neill
48257.17 Annexure A (C) (116 KB, pdf)
48257.17 Plans (1.89 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Ure v Waverley Council [2017] NSWLEC 1246
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1246
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court was required to determine were whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers when approving the development application and whether Ure's concerns regarding non-compliance and environmental harm were valid. The court had to examine the relevant planning laws, the development application, and the evidence presented by both parties to assess the legitimacy of the Council's decision.
The Supreme Court found that the Waverley Council had indeed acted within its statutory powers when approving the development application. The court noted that the application was compliant with the relevant planning laws, and the evidence presented did not substantiate Ure's claims of non-compliance or significant environmental harm. The court emphasised the importance of deference to expert administrative decisions, acknowledging the Council's expertise in planning matters. Consequently, the court dismissed Ure's action and upheld the Council's decision.
As a result of the court's decision, Ure's application was dismissed, and the Council's approval of the development application was upheld. The court ordered that Ure pay the Council's costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the principle of judicial deference to administrative decisions, provided they are within the scope of the relevant statutory powers and supported by evidence.
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.