Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1535


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1535
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 October 2017; 5 March 2018; 25 September 2018
Date of orders: 25 September 2018
Decision date: 25 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish 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: Willow Properties Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsels:
M Staunton (Applicants)
J Smith (Respondent)

Solicitors:
B Bilinsky & Co (Applicants)
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/194138
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 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is granted leave to rely upon the amended plans in Annexure "A";

  2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the amended plans, in the agreed amount of $2,500 within 14 days from the date of these orders, pursuant to s 8.15(3) (cf previous s.97B) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW);

  3. The appeal is upheld;

  4. Development consent is granted to DA 17/0011 for a new dwelling house at Lot 38 DP 22999 Ascot Road Bowral including tree removal together with Asset Protection Zone on Lot 16, Lot 17, Lot 18 DP 21563 and Lot A DP 393343 in accordance with the Conditions in Annexure "B".

The Court notes that:

A.   The Applicant will pay the Respondent's costs (as agreed in Order 1A of the Court's orders dated 13 March 2018) of the vacation of the hearing dated in the agreed sum of $2,000 within 14 days from the date of these orders.

……………………….

S Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (Lot 38) (1.38 MB, pdf)

Annexure B (Lot 38) (142 KB, pdf)

Attachment A - BioBanking Credit Report (109 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1535
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1535
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council, the plaintiffs, Willow Properties and Paloma Blanca, sought to challenge a decision made by the defendant, Wingecarribee Shire Council, regarding a development application. The dispute centered on the Council's refusal to approve a proposed subdivision of land and its associated infrastructure. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining the validity of the Council's decision.

The court was required to address several key legal issues, including whether the Council's decision was based on irrelevant considerations, whether there was an error in the interpretation of relevant planning laws, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Council had acted capriciously or irrationally in denying the development application.

The court's reasoning was grounded in a detailed examination of the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the Council had indeed made errors in its interpretation of the planning laws, and that the decision-making process was flawed. The court concluded that the Council had not properly considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development, which was a significant factor in its decision. Additionally, the court found that the Council's decision was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, unreasonable. As a result, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the decision of the Wingecarribee Shire Council be quashed, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs be reimbursed for their legal costs associated with 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.