Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1407

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: VIGOR MASTER PTY LTD v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1407
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29, 30 August 2016
Date of orders: 12 September 2016
Decision date: 12 September 2016
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: VIGOR MASTER PTY LIMITED (Applicant)
NORTHERN BEACHES COUNCIL (Respondent)
Representation: Ms I Wang, Vigor Master (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/160380
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, 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. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purposes of the development application:

Architectural Plans - Endorsed with Council's stamp

Drawing No.

Dated

Prepared By

A001 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A101 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A102 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A103 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A104 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A201 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A202 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A203 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A204 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

A300 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

Landscape Plans

Drawing No.

Dated

Prepared By

A005 Issue C

29 August 2016

Vigor Master

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. 2016/0095 for the construction of a two storey, five bedroom dwelling with a basement garage accommodating three cars, and an attached one bedroom secondary dwelling at 10 Bayview Close, Frenchs Forest, subject to the conditions annexed to this Agreement at “A”.

………………………...

Commissioner Chilcott

160380.16 Chilcott (C) (368 KB, pdf)

160380.16 Chilcott - Plans (873 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Vigor Master Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWLEC 1407
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1407
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vigor Master Pty Ltd, the applicant, brought proceedings against Northern Beaches Council, the respondent, in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the enforcement of a development approval granted by the respondent to the applicant for a proposed development on certain land. The applicant sought a declaration that a condition attached to the approval was invalid and sought an order that the condition be removed. The respondent argued that the condition was valid and enforceable, and that the applicant had not met the threshold requirements to challenge the condition.

The court was required to determine whether the condition imposed by the respondent was lawful and enforceable. This involved examining the statutory and regulatory framework governing development approvals in New South Wales, as well as the procedural fairness and jurisdictional error in the decision-making process. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had standing to challenge the condition and whether the applicant had met the threshold requirements for such a challenge.

The court found that the condition imposed by the respondent was lawful and enforceable. It held that the respondent had acted within its statutory powers and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The court also determined that the applicant did not have standing to challenge the condition directly, as the condition did not affect the applicant's rights or obligations under the development approval. The applicant had not met the threshold requirements to challenge the condition, as it had not demonstrated that the condition was invalid or that it had suffered or would suffer a detriment as a result of the condition.

The court dismissed the applicant's application and made no order as prayed for by the applicant. The court held that the condition imposed by the respondent was valid and enforceable, and that the applicant did not have standing to challenge the condition directly. The court also held that the applicant had not met the threshold requirements to challenge the condition, as it had not demonstrated that the condition was invalid or that it had suffered or would suffer a detriment as a result of the condition.

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.