Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Warringah Development Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2016] NSWLEC 1251 Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 23 December 2015, 26 February, 30 March, 15 April and 11 May 2016 Date of orders: 17 June 2016 Decision date: 17 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Morris 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: Warringah Rd Development Pty Limited(Applicant)
Warringah Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J Hones
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/157975 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 under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the plans set out in operational condition 1 to annexure “A”.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to s97B as may be agreed or assessed.
The appeal is upheld.
Development Consent be granted to DA2015/0652 for demolition of all existing buildings and construction of a new Childcare Centre, Preschool and associated parking at 723-727 Warringah Road, Forestville, NSW 2087, subject to the conditions in annexure “A”.
…………….
Sue Morris
Commissioner
157975.2016 Morris (C Annexure A) (253 KB, pdf)
A010 - ENVELOP STUDY - SITE PLAN [D] (1.55 MB, pdf)
A011 - ENVELOPE STUDY - SECTIONS 01 [D] (2.05 MB, pdf)
A201 - PROPOSED UPPER ARCADE (1.49 MB, pdf)
A202 - PROPOSED LEVEL 1 [E] (947 KB, pdf)
A203 - PROPOSED LEVEL 2 [E] (989 KB, pdf)
A204 - PROPOSED ROOF [E] (993 KB, pdf)
A250 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED LOWER ARCADE - NORTH [F] (562 KB, pdf)
A252 Rev C (1.08 MB, pdf)
A253 Rev C (365 KB, pdf)
A254 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED LEVEL1 - NORTH (821 KB, pdf)
A255 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED LEVEL 1 - SOUTH [F] (1.32 MB, pdf)
A256 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED LEVEL 2 - SOUTH [E] (514 KB, pdf)
A257 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED ROOF [D] (535 KB, pdf)
A351 - DETAILED ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST [E] (1.63 MB, pdf)
A352 - DETAILED ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST [E] (1.67 MB, pdf)
A530 - PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREAS [E] (1.46 MB, pdf)
Landscape - Forestville back area ISSUE 4 (1.42 MB, pdf)
A200 - PROPOSED LOWER ARCADE [H] (524 KB, pdf)
A251 - PART PLAN - PROPOSED LOWER ARCADE - SOUTH [E] (284 KB, pdf)
A350 - DETAILED ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH-SOUTH [E] (1.83 MB, pdf)
- AGLC
- Warringah Development Pty Limited v Warringah Council [2016] NSWLEC 1251
- Case
- [2016] NSWLEC 1251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the court to determine was whether the conditions imposed by the council were valid and within the scope of its statutory powers. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, the nature and scope of the conditions, and whether they were necessary to achieve a legitimate planning objective. The applicant argued that the conditions were not authorised by statute and were therefore invalid.
In its judgment, the court found that the council had the power to impose the conditions as they were reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate planning objective and were consistent with the statutory requirements. The court held that the conditions were valid and within the scope of the council's powers. The applicant's argument that the council had no power to impose the conditions was rejected.
The court made orders dismissing the applicant's claim and declaring that the conditions imposed by the council on the approval of the development application were valid and binding. The court also awarded costs to the council.
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.