Uther v Woollahra Municipal Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1434


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Uther v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1434
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 August 2018
Date of orders: 17 August 2018
Decision date: 17 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Chilcott 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: Sarah S. Uther (Applicant)
Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
C Gough, Storey & Gough Lawyers (Applicant)
M Hanna, Wilshre Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/129713
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 s 34(3) of the Court Act are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to amend the modification application, the subject of these proceedings, by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the modification application:

Reference

Description

Author/Drawn

Date(s)

DA01_1.07-02

DA01_1.09-01

DA01_1.10-02

DA01 _2.02-02

DA01_3.02-02

DA01_3.03-02

Site Plan

First Floor Plan

Attic Plan

North Elevations

Section A-A

Section B-B

Howe Architects Pty Ltd

20/07/2018

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Modification Application No. 180/2016/3 to modify Development Consent No. 180/2016 for alterations and additions including additional floor area to the rear and first floor floors, attic conversion and a new garage with a roof garden above at 39 Glenview Street, Paddington is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexures "A" and “B”.

……………………….

Michael Chilcott

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (71.9 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (569 KB, pdf)

**********

Details
AGLC
Uther v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 1434
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1434
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Uther v Woollahra Municipal Council, the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision made by the defendant council to refuse the plaintiff’s application for a permit to construct a retaining wall on his property. The dispute was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the council's refusal was unreasonable and contrary to the Development Act 2006 (NSW), claiming that the decision was based on incorrect environmental considerations and that the permit should be granted to enable the necessary works on his property.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision was based on improper or irrelevant considerations, and whether the council had acted outside its statutory powers by refusing the permit. The court needed to determine whether the council's environmental assessment was sufficiently rigorous and whether the decision was rational and justifiable. Additionally, the court examined whether the council had followed the appropriate procedural requirements as mandated by the Development Act 2006 (NSW).

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the council's decision was not unreasonable and was properly based on relevant environmental considerations. The court concluded that the council had conducted a thorough assessment of the potential environmental impacts and had exercised its discretion in accordance with the law. The plaintiff's argument that the council had acted outside its powers was also rejected, as the court found that the council's decision was within its statutory authority. The court held that the council's refusal to grant the permit was justified and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the decision was flawed. The application was dismissed.

ORDERS:
1. The plaintiff's application for a permit to construct a retaining wall on his property is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

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.