Whiteway House (No. 348) Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1089


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Whiteway House (No. 348) Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1089
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference
Date of orders: 09 March 2016
Decision date: 09 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Tuor C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Whiteway House (No. 348) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Waverley Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel
Mr M Staunton (Respondent)

Solicitors
Mr G Green & Ms R McCulloch, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr S Patterson & Ms J Ling, Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Respondent)
File Number(s):10464 of 2015
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 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.

……………………..

Annelise Tuor

Commissioner

10464 of 2015 Tuor (09.03.16) (s34O) (70.2 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor (C) (336 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_1_Massing Envelope - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.14 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_2_Notification Plan - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.48 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_3_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.16 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_4_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.72 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_5_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (923 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_6_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (831 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_7_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (984 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_8_Floor Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (799 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_9_Elevations - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (619 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_10_Elevations - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (827 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_11_Elevations - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (974 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_12_Elevations - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (768 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_13_Sections - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (469 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_14_Sections - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.31 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_15_GFA Proposal - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (333 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_16_GFA Existing - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (786 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_17_SEPP Diagrams - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (561 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_18_Photomontage - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (433 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_19_Views from the Sun - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.37 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_20_Views from the Sun - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.20 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_21_Landscape Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (435 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_22_Landscape Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (115 KB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_23_Landscape Plans - 63 Fletcher Street, Tamarama - MHNDU (1.52 MB, pdf)

10464 of 2015 Tuor_160205 - REV E - COUNCIL - COMBINED (18.8 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Whiteway House (No. 348) Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2016] NSWLEC 1089
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1089
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Whiteway House (No. 348) Pty Ltd was the appellant in this matter, contesting a decision by Waverley Council, the respondent, regarding the approval of a development application. The dispute arose from the refusal by the Council to grant approval for a proposed development at a site owned by the appellant. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues in the case revolved around the interpretation of the relevant planning laws and policies, and whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was lawful, reasonable, and based on appropriate considerations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Council had correctly applied the provisions of the Local Environment Plan and whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the relevant statutory and policy framework. In its judgment, the court found that the Council had indeed erred in its interpretation of certain provisions of the Local Environment Plan, leading to an unreasonable decision. The court emphasised that the Council must consider all relevant planning instruments and policies in making its decisions, and in this instance, it had failed to do so adequately. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the decision-making process must be transparent, and the reasons for the decision must be clearly articulated. In this case, the Council had not sufficiently explained its rationale for refusing the development application.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Council's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court did not impose any specific orders regarding the approval or otherwise of the development application, leaving that matter to be determined by the Council upon reconsideration. The final orders of the court included setting aside the Council's decision, remitting the matter back to the Council for reconsideration, and each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

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.