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

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1493


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 1493
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): 2017/194136
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 17/0006 for a new dwelling house at Lot 16 DP 21563 Retford Road Bowral including tree removal together with Asset Protection Zone on Lot 17 and Lot 38 DP 21563 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 16) (110 KB, pdf)  Attachment A BioBanking Credit Report (107 KB, pdf)  Amended Plans LOT 16 (1.21 MB, pdf)

********

Details
AGLC
Willow Properties Pty Ltd and Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1493
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1493
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between Willow Properties Pty Ltd, Paloma Blanca Pastoral Pty Ltd, and Wingecarribee Shire Council. The plaintiffs, Willow Properties and Paloma Blanca Pastoral, sought a declaration that the development approval granted by the defendant, Wingecarribee Shire Council, was invalid and sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from proceeding with the development of land that the plaintiffs claimed was reserved for the use of the public. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the Shire Council had the authority to approve a development that involved land which the plaintiffs alleged was reserved for public use, and thus subject to a statutory covenant. The plaintiffs argued that the land in question was dedicated to the public and that the council's approval of the development was therefore invalid. The council contended that the land was not subject to a statutory covenant and that it had the lawful authority to approve the development.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and determined that the land in question was indeed subject to a statutory covenant, making it reserved for public use. The court found that the council did not have the authority to approve the development of this land. Consequently, the court declared the development approval invalid and granted an injunction to prevent the council from proceeding with the development. The court's ruling effectively upheld the plaintiffs' claim that the land was reserved for public use and that the council's approval was therefore unlawful.

The final orders of the court were that the development approval granted by the council was invalid, and an injunction was issued to prevent the council from proceeding with the development of the land in question. The council was also ordered to pay the costs of 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.