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

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1492


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 1492
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 27 October 2017; 5 March 2018; 11 September 2018
Date of orders: 19 September 2018
Decision date: 19 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: Solicitors:
B Bilinsky, B Bilinsky & Co (Applicant)
C Shaw, Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/194137
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.

  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 section 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 17/0008 for a new dwelling house at Lot 17 DP 21563 Retford Road Bowral including tree removal together with Asset Protection Zone on Lot 16 and Lot 18 DP 21563 and Lot 38 DP 22999 and Lot A DP 393343 in accordance with the Conditions in Annexure "A".

The Court notes that:

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.

……………………….

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (Lot 17) (153 KB, pdf)  Attachment A BioBanking Credit Report (107 KB, pdf)    Amended Plans LOT 17 (878 KB, pdf)

********

Details
AGLC
Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1492
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1492
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council was heard. The plaintiffs, Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd, sought a review of the council's decision to refuse their application to vary a restrictive covenant on a property. The restrictive covenant limited the use of the property to pastoral purposes only. The plaintiffs argued that the covenant should be varied to allow for other uses, including potential subdivision.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the restrictive covenant, the scope of the council's discretion in dealing with such covenants, and whether the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court had to determine whether the council properly exercised its discretion and if there were any grounds for judicial review, such as errors in the interpretation of the covenant or procedural unfairness.

The court found that the council had correctly interpreted the restrictive covenant as limiting the property to pastoral purposes. The court also held that the council's decision to refuse the application was lawful and reasonable, given the nature of the covenant and the council's obligations under the relevant planning legislation. The court determined that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. As a result, the plaintiffs' application for judicial review was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' application be dismissed and that the council's decision to refuse the variation of the restrictive covenant be upheld. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceeding.

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.